Natural History

Posted in golden retriever | Tagged American badger, golden retriever | 22 Comments

22 Responses

1. on December 11, 2010 at 11:25 pm leashedForLife

   “BTW the badger was fine” …? yeah, right.

   several times the badger had 2 or even all 3 dogs with teeth buried in either end, pulling; NOT DEAD when they stopped filming does not equal “fine” as in very minor injuries…

   and as the dogs “won” after another 20-mins of fighting,
   i am extremely doubtful that the badger survived.
   even if the smaller animal survived the immediate fight, there is no reason to believe that the many punctures inflicted won’t cause death secondarily –
   infection, inability to hunt, fever and a need for extra water, pain making it impossible to eat… the badger is likely a corpse, if not when the dogs quit, then 3 to 6 days later.

   the dogs were being dogs – the owner[s] were being solid-sterling #@$%@&*@!
   no use for pointless cruelty as amusement,
   – terry

   
   
   • on December 12, 2010 at 12:03 am retrieverman

     Actually, I’m also fine with this.

     This is what dogs that are allowed to be dogs in a rural area will occasionally do. My great black dog used to kill rabbits, groundhogs, opossums, and snakes.

     My only complaint is that badgers are becoming less and less common, and I probably would have intervened for that reason.

     This is more like hunting than bloodsport. These are dogs acting out their lupine nature.

     Something to marvel in. Something to remind us of what dogs actually are.

     
     
     • on December 12, 2010 at 12:36 am Bridget

       So RITE.
       I couldn’t understand wad a dog is without knowing the wolf.
       In the beginning and in the end, they are the same.
       I have heard of so many runaway-dog turning into a wild animal after just one week in a forest. A Bernise Mountain Dog. A Greyhound.

       These dogs have gone into a state of “psychosis” – which is not a real psychosis of course. They just turn back to wolves. They don’t remeber / need the dear owner anymore.
       That rawly tells us how deep is the “tamed layer” in their brain. It is totally swept away in a week!

       
       
       • on December 12, 2010 at 12:41 am Bridget

         And that is one of the most intresting part in our friend. Or would you prefer a robot, a Tamakochi, or a modest slave always waiting for your word and license, and licking your and anyone else’s ass, always?

         
         
   • on December 12, 2010 at 12:18 am souggy

     A lot of people who advocate for “catch’n’release” fishing don’t know that there’s a high mortality rate associated with the sudden pressure change from being purged to the surface. So, why is it any different from a badger?

     People tend to think: “well, if the animal is still alive after I last saw it, it must be okay.”

     
     
     • on December 12, 2010 at 12:38 am Bridget

       Yep. Catch’n release is stupid.

       
       
       • on December 12, 2010 at 1:23 pm souggy

         It’s not really stupid. At least some fish survive to see another day. However, I find a lot of animal-welfare people are hypocrites when one cries bloody murder over a footage like this one when the hypocrites themselves go fishing or take part of a ethical sport. It’s dishonest to say one is wrong, but not the other.

         
         
   • on December 12, 2010 at 11:33 am EmilyS

     Watching/encouraging your dog kill another animal IS a bloodsport, whether it’s terrier “work”, allowing your dogs to fight a badger or….. dogfighting. It’s not relevant that the behavior is natural to the dog.

     This isn’t hunting.

     It’s cruelty and sadism.

     On OUR part, not the dogs’ of course.

     It’s also extreme doublestandards indicating that some animals have more rights than others. If this were a film of a pack of dogs going after a cat, it would be a headline about “dangerous” dogs. If this were a film about a pack of dogs going after a deer, it would be a story about dogs killed by a game warden.

     
     
     • on December 12, 2010 at 11:43 am retrieverman

       I’ve watched dogs kill groundhogs in exactly the same way.

       It’s not bloodsport. It’s nature.

       Bloodsport is when the animal cannot get away, which is what you have in rat-baiting and dog-fighting.

       Coonhounds are often encouraged to kill the coon shot out of a tree, just to keep them game. And in my part of the world, people actually eat them

       The only thing that makes me have some reservations here is that American badgers are not doing well everywhere in their range.

       I care about species and ecosystems. If a predator killed my dog, I would not be angry at the predator. I would be upset that the dog was gone, not angry at the horrors of predation.

       That anger turns people into Captain Ahabs.

       
       
     • on December 12, 2010 at 11:46 am retrieverman

       Terrierwork, where the “hunter” lets the dog tear the groundhog apart without letting it escape is bloodsport.

       But a badger– I’ve seen footage of ratels (honey badgers) holding off a whole pride of lions.

       Generally, if a dog tangles with a badger once, it will be the last time.

       As for raccoons, a 30 pound raccoon can kill a 70 pound dog.

       We are losing something by not recognizing that our dogs have this predatory tendency. Our species has it, too.

       
       
       • on December 12, 2010 at 1:19 pm souggy

         Kind of like how the Shiba Inu learned to leave ravens alone after they harassed him?

         
         
     • on December 12, 2010 at 11:50 am retrieverman

       If these dogs were killing a marine iguana on the Galapagos, however, I’d want them all shot.

       
       
     • on December 12, 2010 at 11:57 am retrieverman

       Is falconry bloodsport?

       Coursing with sighthounds?

       Coonhunting?

       I don’t think those are bloodsport.

       Cockfighting–yes, even though chickens on most big farms are treated worse than gamecocks.

       Dogfighting–yes.

       If you build up a wall and won’t let the animal escape or have a place for it to escape, then it’s bloodsport.

       
       
       • on December 12, 2010 at 8:17 pm EmilyS

         yes, to all of the above. All bloodsports. All involve using a pet animal (I count falcons as pets) to hunt/kill another animal, usually just for the owner’s pleasure.

         As I noted previously, some animals are better than others, so the new examples you list are deemed “ok”.

         It’s not the DOGS/birds that are engaged in bloodsport.. it’s the PEOPLE. Dogs don’t have morals. People are supposed to.

         There’s an absolute moral difference between say, watching Animal Planet movies about lions hunting/killing wildebeest (or for that matter, chimps hunting/killing other chimps…) and people setting their pets onto other animals for their own enjoyment (or not intervening when their pets engage in their natural predatory behavior).

         Though personally, I find not much moral difference between Michael Vick taking pleasure in watching dogs tear each other up IRL and the HSUS/CNN/SI disseminating dogfight pornography to titillate viewers and arouse hysteria.

         
         
         • on December 13, 2010 at 12:52 am souggy

           So, what do you call it when you live way out of middle of nowhere with no access to agriculture, and it costs an arm and a leg to import food?

           
           
     • on December 12, 2010 at 4:36 pm Bridget

       Is the cattle raising, milking and then slaughtering them allright? Is it allright to breed foxes in small cages to get fur in the markets? Wad about keeping hens in cages to get her eggs? Or is it acceptable to drive over and injure / kill many wild animals, small or bigger per year?

       
       
2. on December 12, 2010 at 2:19 am HDP

   And some people think cats are cruel for being cats?

   Some breeds of dog, kill their prey quickly. I believe that if you hunt prey too big for your dog to kill quickly, then you owe it to the prey, to finish him off quickly.

   I don’t think it is hunting, when people let their dogs keep attacking something they can’t kill quickly.

   A fight is a bloodsport. If you don’t have dogs that can do it right, and you don’t step in and get it over with, then it is a fight, not a hunt, and I wont watch it.

   Kill with mercy or don’t kill at all.

   
   
3. on December 12, 2010 at 12:11 pm Lane Batot

   Yeah, I wouldn’t have let this go on as long as it did, if they had been my dogs and I could have prevented it–but boy-howdy! I SURE woulda hated to try and pull 3 dogs off of a BADGER! Any attempt is just going to make the dogs think you’re joining in and assisting them, which makes the dogs try harder and take riskier chances–not to mention there is a great chance you’ll have a badger hanging off of one of your own appendages! I would try to leash and tie one dog at a time, until I had them all leashed and out of the way and give the badger a chance to take off–it would NOT be any easy thing to do! I never had this problem with my wolf dogs–they would have killed this badger in seconds–but most other dogs–I’d be much more worried about the damage the badger would do to THEM! Badgers are extremely tough critters, with VERY tough hides–despite how badly this looks, I bet–IF the badger did get away, it was little worse for the wear–wild animals tend to be much more resistant to wounds and infections than domestic animals. I never punish or even admonish any of my dogs for displaying perfectly natural predatory behaviour, and if they do kill something, I encourage them to eat it, so it is not wasted(if I don’t want it for myself!)–but I would not have let such an incident go on-and-on like this one–it is rather reminiscent of the old time “badger baiting” days! But again–dang–I’d have hated to had to try and bust this kind of encounter up! I AM impressed with how darn GAME the GOLDEN RETRIEVERS are, though!!!!!

   
   
   • on December 12, 2010 at 12:17 pm retrieverman

     They normally are not. A raccoon’s bluff charge is enough to stop them.

     
     
4. on December 13, 2010 at 11:24 am Peggy Richter

   There’s pretty much similar video of a wolf vs a wolverine (they both survived) on youtube.
   Emily wrote: yes, to all of the above. All bloodsports. All involve using a pet animal (I count falcons as pets) to hunt/kill another animal, usually just for the owner’s pleasure. …It’s not the DOGS/birds that are engaged in bloodsport.. it’s the PEOPLE. Dogs don’t have morals. People are supposed to.

   ==so you can hunt but it’s morally wrong to enjoy it? sounds pretty much like you are trying to seperate human beings from any other animal. We evolved as Omnivorous predators. We enjoy it. So do chimps, lions, dogs, wolves, hyenas and even “Flipper” the dolphin. Would I have let my dogs go on with a badger like this? Not if I’d had a clear shot at the badger. But from the video, you’d have had to be a very very good shot to do that. Dogs sometimes call off and sometimes don’t. And this video didn’t occur in the wild – the badger escaped into haybales.
   I don’t believe in deliberately and intentionally prolonging pain for the sake of pain. Cockfights, dog fights (and less common but also known horse fights and staged fights between cattle) are all popular for two reasons. Gambling (which is a big part of it) and the same “spectator interest” that waits for the wrecks at an Indy race or the choreographed violence of football and soccer. A number of primates (including monkeys, baboons and chimps) seem to enjoy it.
   You want Humans to be “further” from our animal ancestors. Because some of the “animal” behaviors annoy you. Is letting your pet cat play with a mouse a bloodsport? If it is, is it only a bloodsport if you watch?
   I’m against dog fighting and cock fights because it is a deliberate set up simply for the fight without any intention to use the results for food or survival. But with this badger, there’s no way to know it had not been making a habit of raiding the farm. Haybales are not the natural environment of badgers.
   I personally don’t see the difference between using dogs to course deer as opposed to a wolf pack coursing that same deer. It isn’t evil simply because a human is involved. I would object if the hunter didn’t use that deer. I don’t like waste and do find that objectionable. If you eat it, I don’t think the deer cares if it’s a Scottish Deerhound takes it down instead of a wolf.
   I don’t find it “more moral” to pay someone to film violence with a camera so one can enjoy it from one’s couch than in participating oneself. I think that simply is a cultural convention that has little to do with biological realities of why we enjoy such programs. The enjoyment of watching lions and hyenas fight it out on Nat’l Geo isn’t really different from watching dogs vs badger.
   Peggy Richter.

   
   
5. on December 15, 2010 at 1:43 pm M.R.S.

   You say that Golden Retrievers “aren’t supposed to engage in” this sort of activity. Do you mean that Goldens are too “soft” or lack courage? (which I would argue as far too broad a statement) or that they should not be permitted to pursue smaller animals (different matter entirely) or that they don’t engage in pack behavior (they are still DOGS, y’know)?

   Frankly, it looked to me as if the dogs were enjoying a game of “chase-and-catch-the-furry-critter” (although obviously the badger wasn’t), and showing a good degree of bite inhibition. I’ve seen Goldens dispatch angry possums and groundhogs with one good grab– but these dogs did not appear to be intending to cause real damage.

   Of course, the dogs’ idea of “fun” often varies from ours…

   
   
   • on December 15, 2010 at 1:56 pm retrieverman

     I meant that tongue-in-cheek.

     If we are to read Coppinger, he would contend that a retriever would lack the ability to kill anything.

     
     

Comments are closed.