0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If one thing gets me it's the ignorance and mis-comprehension of humankind, but particularly Animal Liberation about humans as anything more than part of the green environment itself as a sum of the whole. What it is separates man from apes is the very fact they are a carnivore alike canines(a hyper-carnivore). God himself in any thought of a being is not a mistaken novice at creation or evelution , it's the human judges.Apart giant cats(felines) , through time humans have always as far back as pre-history not just history(6000 years previous 4000 years BC) have either burial insinuations of/with canids, not just written record in Cuneiform or Proto-cuneiform. The earliest is Bau (or Baba) 2000BC a Godess "of healing" - ...QUOTE: at the goddess's cult city "Isin", archaeologists found bronze plaques scratched with images of dogs, a statue of a kneeling figure embracing a dog, and a number of small clay dogs, one of which was inscribed with a prayer to the goddess (Fuhr 1977: 136). Protective figurines of dogs were often deposited in the foundations of buildings; one bore the injunction: "Don't stop to think-- Bite!" (Black and Green 2003: 70)....END QUOTEIt is little wonder that hunting using man as master and nurture of canids for hunting has existed without it being considered to be an act of the "the gods" or upper echilon society, but as a standard normal action of ordinary individuals that acknowledge and revere canids either in gods name or the respect of their monarch as a holy sign of loyalty or even a challenge to their monarch of loyalty to god(what or whichever that represents).The Ancient Romans had the phable of "Romulus" the founder of the city of Rome that was nurtured by "Canis Lupus" wolves in a cave where the city of Rome became. The Ancient Egyptians had two separate Dog gods "Wepwewat" as a manifestation of Isis and "Anubus" his son. In Egypt the god Anubus was worshiped in two places, his main cult city half way to Numibia in "Cynopolis Superior" in the middle of the Nile river, and in the middle south-west nile Delta in "Cynopolis Inferior", later the greek god of the dead took over in early A.D. when the Greeks controlled Egypt. When Cynopolis was dug up, there were so many sacrifice mummies of puppies that the people and government had excess specimens of them pulverised and sold internationally as part of(additive to) fertilser.The Roman Empire itself had a city called "the city of Wolves" in which wolves themselves were holy and allowed to roam free through the streets.Because of the inexorable link in the past 6000 years before history itself could be recorded, and as proven by the Aborigines of Australia with Dingoes, it cannot be that anyone can deny the activity, or state it as, disrespectful or inhumane or cruel in God to use a dog "Canis Familiaris" or wolf "Canis Lupus" by being a human bonded master as part of a family unit with a canine or canines to hunt and kill using the canines to commit that upon the prey.
===http://books.google.com.au/books?id=LfYirloa_rUC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=archeology+wolves+teeth+hominid&source=bl&ots=gewab0-ZYY&sig=l4qI81J4VYsWbyvYBmuddbv59M0&hl=en&ei=yxNiTfr5IMKrcevzwc8J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]Food for thought - is this suspectable earlier than science so far speculates(at only some little 135,000 years)Ultimately what Wolves shared with humans more than anything, is the encephalization and communal cooperative functions, and the use of ground level "travel and sleep", of which the case for domesticised wolves may more actually belong to Homo Erectus at 1.8 - 1.6 million years in Asia-middle-east(where the domestic dog DNA matches gray wolves in modern DNA testing) but also actually somewhere around 500,000 years before Canis Lupus was fastened as a species, this suggest that for 500,000 years, maybe near to a million years, that the encephalization and behavior may have been more than promoted into and back from (by cooperative living at ground level) the evolution of inclusively the Gray Wolf predecessor(not merely domestication of the gray wolf to a domestic dog - but also the very underpinning evolution to the two predecessors of Homo Sapiens) itself by the second older direct predecessors(Homo Ergaster and Homo Erectus) of Homo Sapiens whom did have enough intellegence to produce tools.It is concievable that a more primitivised version of Gray Wolf(its predecessor) and alike species versions could contain less social pack instinct and communal behavior function 1/2 a million years before they became and is at the same time H. Erectus / Homo Ergaster started existance? , but the most notable(as pointer proof for cause to question) evolved of this behavior occur in the sweep of the H. Erectus and H. Ergaster areas(Southern Europe accross to Easterly-Asia -MAP http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/en/zalaczniki/upload23.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]) when their evolution finalised around 800,000 years previous just as the domestic dog appears to be found in some terms of given accuracy by DNA testing and the Gray Wolf, Dholes and Jackals all show strong communalised methods and higher level thinking for cooperation that are exibitions of human qualities of packing and family.A guess at the Evolved "development of Pack Hierarchy and reverent morality" propagated by interspecies cooperation "brain function" evolution--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(note: "Homo heidelbergensis" and "Homo Erectus" are commonly referred to of the appropriate era(However as thought also maybe the start mark can be Australopithicus), commoness and geographic areas, there are many other species of Hominids at these times but they are rarer or localised less relevent to wolves or wolves species predecessors)Morality can be expressed here as the complex inbuilt instinct emotive base of control of pack hierarchy. Greater encephalization level as the indicator the brain has undergone evolution that has added an embedded instinct function. Squabbling over food such as a hunting kill is one thing that can present the idea to be moral in accord to a group rank hierarchy but often in the same species is as much useless to teach that as one may take from another totally unfairly. Where it would need to develop higher level morality is when another beneficial species technically has no value at some times and must be taken or leaved as the prey but again required discipline to "not prey on the different species and as a must not" because of the learned usefulness of that differnet species. There is more evidence to suggest that for both Wolves and Humans again the co-evolution hypothesis is right because of a far more subtle and complex development that appears to also have taken place around a million years back in both species, that being the first glimmer of inset instinctive brain function order called "reverent morality" that forms the base of performing "pack hierarchy order" naturally. The trouble here is because hunting for a group of wolves or their predecessor species does not require much order only the ability to achieve a simple specific goal it is not concievable that much promotes instinctive inset brain function to become present by evolution. What is needed is some promotion of the need to conform and cooperate at some level more complex than simply applying the main tools of the canid species at survival. One of these may have been to over-supply kill by judgement of size of an individual of a prey species and thus group hunting and sharing was either learned as possible or became a better obvious choice and also incurred the Hominid as a scavenger, but his advantage may have been the ability to drive away giant cats and other predators, so the two could have begun watching and using each and other.Again for Homo Erectus not much need is required for ranking hierarchy and cooperation either to evolve "morality" and thus a more natural instinctive "pack hierarchy" as brain function so hence nothing to promote such thought. However such is present in modern day wolves and shows that little would differ at 4000 BC compared to 1,000,000 BC with e.g. promotion or training synthetically in the Australian Dingo.While recent scientific research shows the Australian Dingo is not quite a wolf it does actually become classified as a "Canis Lupus(a wolf)" because these brain functions are inbuilt to it the same as the 1,000,000 year old present "Canis Lupus Lupus(the Grey Wolf)", it has also been land-locked away for 6000 years and continues to operate as a Lupus.What is important to realise here is there is a serious possibility the two developed this brain function system("pack hierarchy" and "morality") from interspecies cooperation that required more careful higher thinking from both and its result from requirements to cooperate were the "pack hierarchy" and "morality" as inbuilt instinct by evolution.The promotion of interspecies cooperation would probably come from both Homo Erectus and Canis Lupus hunting the same prey and the fact that the two were probably around equal at that task because Homo Erectus had little more intellect than an animal but simply certainly more(pardon the pun), however the hominid was able to make and utilise immensely crude tools.*Here it is best to describe what is meant by tool because it simply means extra help at mechanical action to create greater efficiency of an action but far from perfect. It requires realising to pick up a large stone able to be held in the fist that has a protruding jut out away from the palm is a tool "with a handle called gripping it". It's used by swinging it at the head of e.g. an antelope to strike it with the jut while not letting go and the jut and inertia combined smash its skull immensely compared to striking it with blunt hardwood or bare fist. So now the hominid has an efficient hunting tool, but the hominid cannot catch up with prey by speed, the hominid can only hope to ambush the prey from infront.The type and size of prey for both wolves and Hominids is much the same often and is known proven today as with the 1.6 million year old food waste animal species artifacts around Homo Erectus. Wolves predecessors do have the ability to catch up to prey of the same type the hominid wants but would be a competitor not an assistance unless it were realised that if the hominid appears in front of cloven or ruminant prey and wolves were behind it may cause a jam, a pile up or more probably a slowing of a herd because of the requirement of the prey to turn to escape. Any of these herbivore ruminant prey observed today prefer open areas where they can run and sense or see preditors at a distance to have time to detect and react.
Because of these types of activities being played out day after day over 1.6 million years everyday since it is little wonder that from 1.5 million years previous to 1 million years previous that a non obligatory but common interspecies cooperation inclusive of kill sharing could have occurred that has absolutely no archeological record as much resulted in a great promotion of cooperative morality and hierarchy and reverent morality that shows in wolves as Alpha-ism of pack family and burial at 600,000 years previous in the predecessor of Homo Sapiens.Becuase "Homo heidelbergensis(the Hominid before Homo Sapiens and after Homo Erectus)" started to commit burial around 500,000 years previous and the domestic dog DNA genes occurred around 135,000 years previous, adding 300-400,000 years for distinctive sub species evolution to the Domestic dog from Canis Lupus would indicate serious inter-species cooperative efficiency had been occurring at somewhere around 500,000 years previous(1/2 a million), at the transition from Homo Erectus to Homo heidelbergensis. However it may have been another 1/2 a million years previous to that Canis Lupus acquired its evolved brain function and as nothing more than the ingrained suitability to wild hunting at the opposite end of the herd with hominids purely by all the close environmental proximates(on the ground to travel and sleep , on a plain hunting cloven ruminants).For most, the development of the higher developed morality(since they both have some for nurture of their own species) and pack hierarchy for cooperative effect could easily take 1 million years of re-interaction continually with Homo Erectus and also some with his newer following hominid type to develop / evolve the brain function and inset instinct brain section by encephalization increase because it requires to re-occur regularly as thought problem when hunting prey and there is only each social incident during hunting, or scavanging.Scavanging itself is just as easily an action that causes Hominids to find or flight wolves as much as wolves may find Hominids to scavange or flight there hunting leftovers, remember, the Hominids in this are not much more than animals themselves and do often get preyed upon by various predators apart perhaps wolves.Why giant cats were not cooperated with would be a question here and is easily supposed an answer that it is more dangerous because of its claws and some instinctive reactions they possess are far more swift and unstoppable, hence they probably were attempted to be exploited but were found unstoppable at keeping and killing to compete after the kill intantly to defend a kill from anything else, *-they do not substantively have a good record among them of sharing or cooperative behavior unlike canids(*-but is a fast generalisation here).The becoming of burial by Homo heidelbergensis can be thought of as an encephalization marker for "Homo heidelbergensis" and "Homo Erectus" that is as much only 400,000 years later than wolves as a completed instinctive pack hierarchy moralised community , but most dates and transitions of either Hominids or Canids in their evolutional stages can accurately wander 200,000 years plus or minus around the 1,000,000 million year aging level of evolutionary development.-- and an alternate view of the sameAt 4 million years previous -..."Canines spread to Africa (Early Pliocene) and South America (Late Pliocene). (1)"...- and at 2.5 million years "Australopithecus garhi"(Late Pliocene Epoch - Early Pleistocene) occurs with first stone tool types.Again, rather than use Homo Erectus / H. Ergaster as the start point to commit comparitive co-evolution of wolves and evolution of pack hierarchy and brain function for reverent morality, the process can match just as well for co-evolution by interspecies cooperation using "Australopithecus garhi" as the start point. The morality ideals appear to have taken longer in Hominids, but that could simply be that not much competition from other hominid individuals ever occurs and in relation to(the context of) the interaction with wolves, the Hominid is the winner and akin an Alpha so does not learn / gain much for evolving brain function for rank respect at least, while the wolves learn faster(maybe a little over 1 million years to develop) but less because their evolving encephalization effect does not get far for the actual "reverent" purposes as far as ceremony and burial because their mechanical and survival affordances are not able to obtain a rewarding thinking and feeling method to commit as effectively and substantially as a Hominid, (However, again, a Hominid cannot appreciate rank and respect in cooperation easily) to finnish this paradox.Pleistocene Wolves (European:Canis Etruscus 1.8 - 1.5 Millon ya - America(irrelevent):Canis Edwardii)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]http://www.searchingwolf.com/wevolve.htm [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-10-104.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]http://anthropology.net/2009/12/16/lithic-assemblage-dated-to-1-57-million-years-found-at-lezignan-la-cebe-southern-france/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]If this were provable where would you be then with that accusation in animal lib.===
However, there is far worse again for animal lib! It appears the from the greater quantity of high technology science accuracy and found evidence that a newer theory of evolution is much more creditable about hunting and human canids being born of nature not outright blood lust but simply as natural as wolves evolution themselves.The theory from DNA calculation of species change from wolves to Domestic dogs is dated as being existant around 135,000 years back when Homo Sapiens were first shifted to from the previous version of bipedal upright human.Domestic dog genetic evolution distinction appears to have occured around 50,000 years after Archaic Homo Sapiens are considered to have fastened as a species.However the above means only real proof that wolves and humans had real connection in life and survival and support in primative co-existence back to only 200,000 years at most.The actaul view is an evolutional and social fastening to humans by outbreeding wolves called a dog "Canis familiaris". A supporting question is whether hunting using wolves was a commonly or used mechanism by "Homo heidelbergensis" at 600,000 (1/2 a million years) whom "effectively was a Homo Sapien by engineering activity(note: 400,000-year-old wooden projectile spears were found at Schöningen in northern Germany)" and is a common acestor of the Homo Sapien.As you are an animal liberationist, after denying the pact between dogs and humans in killing prey as a natural inbuilt social order of mind function by humans with canids that binds the two species in social cooperative activity, that is effectively "Heresy" against your own evolution, or if you are a creationist,by evidence sake you are a heretic as an attacker against the activity of hunting using dogs/wolves too.http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1405262/Co-Evolution-New-evidence-suggests.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]--https://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/Science/Coevolution03.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]NOTE: The above linked article contains work that did not inspire the above post and its supposition that appears similar to the original work here by myself on evolution theory/hypothesis that "higher level morality" and "rank /pack hierarchy" and "reverence" could be / maybe an evolved inherited brain function promoted by interspecies cooperation.This is with particular reference to this quoted passage from the document(Co-evolution of Humans and Canids An Alternative View of Dog Domestication: Homo Homini Lupus? by Wolfgang M. Schleidt/Michael D. Shalter) following... ...QUOTE: There is something in the bond among wolves and between dogs and humans that goes beyond that between us and our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzees. Here we are not talking about intelligence, but about what we may poetically associate with kindness of heart. ...END QUOTE...--Encephalization quotiant information for Caniforms(NOTE: sorry about the vagueness in the Epoch/era timelines for species but it's only free research documents)http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/27/0901780106.full.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4067/is_200801/ai_n24393957/?tag=content;col1 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]--
Animal Liberation article text as taken from the private forum:Pig-dog hunting or pig-dogging (“dogging”) as it is generally known, represents the cruelest and most barbaric form of hunting in Australia. It is also has a range of associated social, animal welfare, and ecological issues. Pig-dogging in Australia is a bastardised and brutalised version of boar hunting, an ancient “sport” of the aristocracy from both Roman and Celtic Europe. Even within sections of the hunting community in Australia, the activity is considered to be barely acceptable or defensible. This is acknowledged by the fact that the Government-appointed Game Council for licensed hunting in NSW has never had a representative of pig-dogging despite all other forms of legal hunting having appointees to the Council. In simple terms, pig-dogging involves the tracking, bailing, pinning, and mauling of wild pigs by specially-blooded pig-dogs wearing protective cut collars, which guard the throat and neck of the dog, and breastplates and vests to protect the dogs from being gored by the trapped pigs. The dog’s role is to either bail the wild pig or pin the wild pig by their ears until a human handler can arrive, usually on foot, to turn the mauled pig on its back, while being mauled by the dogs, and dispatched through the heart with a broad-bladed knife or shot at close range. As this dispassionate description indicates, the hunted pig can suffer severe, extensive, and prolonged stress, hurt, and injury before a brutal, and often slow death. Most people unfamiliar with this form of hunting, including the majority of Australia’s urban dwellers, are typically shocked and distraught upon finding that, not only is this form of hunting legal, but it is actively promoted by Government agencies such as Game Council NSW. Because of the large areas covered in such hunts, the distances covered by the hunting dogs in search of quarry, and the difficulty for the human handlers in maintaining contact with their dogs, hunted pigs can be mauled for long periods and even killed before their human handlers are able to kill the trapped animals. Many pictorials in pig-hunting magazines show this situation and also human handlers standing by while the pig is mauled by groups of dogs. By its very gratuitous and brutal nature, it is also in reality virtually impossible to participate in this form of hunting without the hunter seriously compromising the intentions and regulations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 and Companion Animals Act 1998. This fact is openly admitted by even defenders of the “sport” with many graphic examples available in any dedicated magazines such as Boar it Up Ya’, Bacon Busters, and websites such as Ozziedoggers. These all have as their currency ample expressions of gratuitous pleasure in the pain suffered by the quarry, glorification of brutality with quarry mauled far beyond even what is considered acceptable in the industry, and triumphant hunters, often with their children, posing with the dead boar, often in mock comical poses such as with a beer can between the dead animals teeth. The only representative body for pig-doggers in Australia, the APDHA, despite a number of years attempting to improve welfare and public acceptance of pig-dogging in Australia only represents approximately 2–3 per cent of the estimated 30,000 pig-doggers in NSW and Queensland. Tangential issues to consider when examining the issue of pig-dogging in rural Australia include: • Pig-dogging is a very personal and tactile form of hunting. Therefore, one can speculate on the brutalising effect of this blood sport on its participants, and particularly their children who are often photographed at hunts with other family members. • Native wildlife. Although pig-digs are supposedly trained to not attack native wildlife and stock, there is ample evidence that native terrestrial species including wallabies and kangaroos are often attacked by dogs not under the direct supervision of their handlers. Conversely, the only way to “train” dogs so as to not attack native wildlife is traditionally to beat any animals that are caught attacking native wildlife. • Lost and strayed dogs. Lost and strayed pig-dogs are a major issue in rural Australia. Lost pig-dogs in the large rural areas of western NSW also raises the possibility of these highly-aggressive selectively-bred hunting dogs becoming wild and interbreeding with dingoes creating a large, super-aggressive canine predator in the Australian landscape. • A number of attacks in rural and regional Australia occur each year involving dogs bred for pig-dogging. These attacks often involve dogs that have escaped from holding pens in semi-rural areas, or are often attacks of family members of pig-dog enthusiasts have allowed their dogs and children to mingle without supervision. Because of these dogs’ aggressive natures, socialisation, size and agility, and high-pain threshold, these attacks are generally of a more serious nature than attacks by other domestic or companion dogs. • Injuries, death, and brutalisation of pig-dogs. Wild pigs in Australia can grow up to 200kg with male boars having tusks up to 15cm long. Pig-dogs are only 20–40 kg or less and, despite being aggressive and efficient hunters, are often injured and killed during pig-dog hunts. This is especially so for hunts in western NSW where large areas must be covered and keeping track of hunting dogs can be difficult. A cornered wild pig will typically turn and charge its tormentor and it is in these circumstances where pig-dogs are often injured or killed. To train pig dogs to hunt such large and dangerous quarry, pig-dogs must be “blooded” and trained to not retreat from such attacks. This often involves severe and excessive negative physical reinforcement in the form of beatings, starvation, and psychological abuse of the animals. For this and a range of other implied reasons such as its failure to adequately fulfill the requirements of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Pig Dogging should should be banned in NSW at the first available opportunity. Few, apart from its direct supporters, would mourn its passing into history with such other blood sports as bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and greyhound coursing...
Quoteprecisprecis? - preface / forward ?
Quote from: nicephotog on 25/02/2011 02:31:34Quoteprecisprecis? - preface / forward ?Let my take a stab at it:Domesticated dogs are genetically almost identical to Grey Wolves, but the reason they don't look and behave like wolves is because of rapid canine/human influenced selection.
Over simplifying it.
So I'm basically right then?