SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) evaluated around 120 dogs from three large breeds from Europe and Asia bred to be gentle around sheep and children but vicious when confronting wolves. The four-year study was carried out by the USDA's National Wildlife Research Center and tested how these dogs did guarding livestock against wolves and coyotes in the western US.
[...] Young and her colleagues zeroed in on areas where dogs had been bred to protect livestock from wolves and brown bears. They selected three breeds for the study: Cao de Gado Transmontanos, originally from the mountains of Portugal; Karakachans, bred by nomadic shepherds in Bulgaria; and Kangals, developed to guard livestock in Turkey. The dogs were gathered as puppies and sent to the U.S., where they were used to guard 65 herds of sheep in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and Oregon.
Another finding was that when the owner and the dogs had a closer bond, the dogs performed their jobs much better. Something that might not be commonly realized in areas where they are kept exclusively for companionship or entertainment is that the different breeds of dogs are bred to gravitate to and specialize in particular activities: they have jobs they like doing.
From The Scientist : The Breeds of Guard Dogs that Best Protect Livestock: Study (2018)
and The Associated Press : Imported guard dogs deployed as part of US wolf-sheep study (2018)
and Agri-Pulse : Got wolves? USDA brings on the big dogs (2014).
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:39AM (10 children)
We shot the wolves for a damn good reason.
Yes yes, I know there are some trivial benefits. This is not enough to compensate for the harm. Wolves are hazardous to humans, to livestock, and to pets. They are more hazardous than actual attacks would indicate, because we limit ourselves for safety; our lives are less enjoyable even when we aren't being attacked. We are less free to live our lives than we otherwise would be.
I note that it is the city-dwelling types who think wolves are nice doggies. Fine, we can fence in the cities and release the wolves right there. Let the wolves feed on the clueless government-dependent soyboy cucks. You want wolves, you can have them, right in San Francisco and Manhattan. They can meet you at a trendy restaurant to have dinner. It's not right that you vote to make my rural area dangerous when you haven't even stepped outside of a city.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday March 14 2018, @05:46AM (2 children)
That sounds specifically like a US-centric perspective [satwcomic.com].
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:09AM (1 child)
Europe solved their wolf problem so many generations ago no one remembers it. That doesn't make it US-centric, not in any way.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 15 2018, @01:38AM
Allow me to point out that European wolves and American wolves are very different. There were documented cases of European wolves preying on humans. You can't find American wolves preying on humans until after humans began meddling in their gene pool by interbreeding dogs and wolves.
Wolves in America are more dangerous today than they have ever been in the past. Interbreeding and acclimatization with humans have removed the wolves fear of humans. This is a case of humans screwing nature up, yet again.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:17AM (3 children)
Feedin the troll an all that:
All the animals and even many of the plants are quite interdependent on each other. Out in the wolves' traditional range that means they are interdependent on the wolf, especially since it is an apex predator. If you remove he wolves you ruin the whole show. Take the case of trout. If you like to catch trout out west then you need wolves. It even benefits the elk (aka wapiti, not moose) population, despite them being a food source of the wolves and the many other animals and birds that pick the leftover bones.
It's still to soon to say for sure how much benefit the large trees species have had but early indicators suggest that the result is also positive. Weak, fast-growing types like willow certainly have.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:11AM (2 children)
I did acknowledge that wolves bring some trivial benefits. My point is that this is not worthwhile. Lots of other things are the same way: nuking Puerto Rico will stop mosquitoes that carry zika, but is that worth the cost?
I really don't give a damn about some trivial benefits when the subject is a bloodthirsty maneater.
Take the elf for example. If you want elk, you can farm them. If wild elk get too annoying, we can hunt them.
The bit about the trout is highly suspicious. Look, you can concoct a chain of interactions that show kangaroos in Australia are helping bats in South America. Sure... but how much? It's nothing of significance. Even if trout do depend on wolves, why should we sacrifice children to get fish?
We don't have a natural ecosystem, we aren't going to get one, and being "natural" isn't ideal for us anyway. We lost the American chestnut, and we gained kudzu. There is no going back. Our nation is a giant garden now, largely artificial, to be laid out as benefits us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @10:15AM (1 child)
Still waiting on your elf example.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @11:51AM
Have you ever been to a forest with no wolves? And did you see elves there? No?
So we conclude: Where there is no wolf, there is no elf. ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @07:45AM
We got us a hot one, peoples! Caniphobic alt-righter who has tofu issues. Claims to be "rural", but "domesticated" would be more accurate, or even "suburban". How big is your "ranch", AC? More or less than one acre? You are aware, are you not, that Liam Neeson movies are fiction?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14 2018, @06:00PM
you're a chickenshit if you think wolves are such a threat that you have to wipe them out. stupid goat humping ranchers think they should be able to leave herds of domesticated animals roaming all across the wild plains and then they want to suit up and ride around in helicopters like bad asses sniping anything that dared to try and eat their bred-to-be-helpless livestock. too lazy and greedy to even train dogs to watch over the herd. if you can't keep predators away without actively hunting them, then you are a dumb sack of shit. period.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 15 2018, @02:52AM
A paper by a wildlife biologist:
http://www.vargfakta.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Geist-when-do-wolves-become-dangerous-to-humans-pt-1.pdf [vargfakta.se]
TL;DR: either men with guns hunt wolves, or wolves eventually start hunting men.
info compilation site:
http://wolfeducationinternational.com/ [wolfeducationinternational.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.