|
|
Post by theropod on May 6, 2014 23:36:07 GMT 5
pckts: No, it isn’t. Thank you, I am very well aware how darwinism works. The point being that the stuff you are claiming about domestic cats doesn’t hold true for the vast majority–because the vast majority of domestic cats retain their speed, agility, self-sufficience, killing instinct, hunting ability etc.. Accordingly, they hunt, climb, play and spend the majority of their time outside, just like their wild counterparts. The vast majority of domestic cats, and very likely those that would realistically encounter an eagle, are not spoiled little pets (which might hold true for dogs), they are felines with mostly natural behaviour but accustomed to being surrounded by humans.
|
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158 
|
Post by pckts on May 7, 2014 1:07:30 GMT 5
Do I need to post how Darwinism works? Fine. A domestic cat's survival is not dictated on hunting or fighting or avoiding predators or being able to sustain life through harsh times and good times. A domestic cat gets fed whenever it whines, it sleeps on beds in the safety of its owners home. It is protected, given medicine when sick and lastly, it is a hybrid bred with different cats for years and years to make sure its temperament is the most accommodating to a human. Meaning it must be loving, gentle, and friendly. Those traits will lead it to death in the wild. Do I really need to explain this? But in exchange, they play a lot and hunt a lot by themselves. Both improves their reflexes and their killing instinct is kept. This website elaborates on this: www.sheknows.com/pets-and-animals/articles/6563/are-cats-smarter-than-dogsSurvival of the fittest
Let's face it, cats are more independent and self-suffient than dogs. They don't require nearly the amount of work or attention as dogs. Cats can survive for days with just a bowl of food and water. So go ahead — take that weekend vacation. Lilly is fine!
Cats don't need to be walked or exercised either. They don't need to be let outside every time they have to go to the bathroom nor do they have to be bathed. So, cats exercise, potty train and bathe themselves. Dog's can't. Sorry, puppy lovers, this one goes to the cats.They play because they don't NEED to hunt to survive. They are not tackling prey twice their size and fighting with it to make sure they have enough food to make it through the next day. Do not try to compare a domestic cat to any wild one. Cats survive for the weekend you are gone because you leave the food out for them. They eat at their leisure because their is no competition. Dogs are absolutely as self sufficient as cats. Hence why any place their are feral cats their are feral dogs as well. Cats don't need to be "taken on a walk'' but neither do dogs. They are taken on a walk for their satisfaction to go outside but cats still need exercise and room to roam. A dog doesn't need to be taken outside to go to the bathroom, once again, HUMANS require them to do so so they don't go in the house. Cats can be taught to go outside, in a toilet, etc... This again has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. These are traits that are taught to these animals, and once again is proving my point. Just because a cat or dog can survive in a human controlled means nothing when it comes to the wild. In fact it is a detriment because they never learn to be truly wild and survive with out the help of human beings. But this debate has nothing to do with the differences between wild cats and domestic. Which of course, are not comparable. So I am not exactly sure what you're trying to say. |
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on May 7, 2014 1:13:46 GMT 5
pckts: No, it isn’t. Thank you, I am very well aware how darwinism works. The point being that the stuff you are claiming about domestic cats doesn’t hold true for the vast majority–because the vast majority of domestic cats retain their speed, agility, self-sufficience, killing instinct, hunting ability etc.. Accordingly, they hunt, climb, play and spend the majority of their time outside, just like their wild counterparts. The vast majority of domestic cats, and very likely those that would realistically encounter an eagle, are not spoiled little pets (which might hold true for dogs), they are felines with mostly natural behaviour but accustomed to being surrounded by humans. No it isn't?  ? Ok, lets see a single shred of PROOF. One piece of evidence that states that the Tiny, skinny, small body of the serval was a adult. Just 1! "the vast majority retain their speed, agility, hunting ability etc.." Really........ So the fact they have much smaller fangs, claws, limb size, skull density, muscle %, are much smaller, have way more fat, never have to fight for their lives, only "hunt" a fly or mouse that is in the house, means they are comparable to a bobcat who has huge fangs, massive paws with big claws, longer limbs with way more muscle, are born without spoiled nature and must hunt and kill any and all its food then defend it against wolf, coyote, puma, other bobcat, badgers, etc.... and you want to compare them to a housecat. Ok  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 7, 2014 2:04:43 GMT 5
That "tiny, skinny, small" serval did not have the fur coloration of a serval kitten, that’s it. I’m not saying it must be fully mature tough, In fact the odds are that it was not, since the martial eagle could apparently lift it for a short distance.
But it’s probably still around the weight of the eagle, so it’s not such an unimpressive kill the way you seem to believe. Again, you are underestimating how much larger birds of prey look (and how much more potent their weapons are) compared to other animals of the same body mass.
Again, I presume you are going to back all that up with proof?
Every single description of domestic and feral cats pronounces their impressive physique and capabilities. There’s a reason for that.
No cat has an extremely damaging bite, which is the reason they rely so much on precision and grappling, and compared to an eagle’s any cat’s claws are small (in fact a harpy eagle’s claws are longer than a siberian tiger’s). If long limbs are an advantage in a fight, servals are surely among the most formidable cats, along with cheetahs…
Irrelevant, eagles and hawks are also much smaller than Kelenken.
They don’t? Well how about accipitrid predation on them?
You haven’t had a lot of experience with normal house cats in your life, have you?
I’ll reiterate here since you obviously still haven’t gotten the point.
This is not relevant.
First of all, I’m not talking about bobcats here. In case you haven’t noticed, nothing about this thread has any connection to bobcats. The whole argument derived from your assertion, that must admittedly have been made without much thought, that there were no other predators today as inpressive as felines in absolute or relative terms. If it’s just that you feel as if you could not admit your claim was premature; that really shouldn’t worry you to the extent of rather going through this.
Accipitrids are clearly predators that operate on a higher trophic level than (and occasionally prey on) similar-sized felines. Fact: house, feral or wild cats have never killed foxes, racoons, opossums, coyotes, wolves, pronghorn, caribou, mule or white tailed deer. In fact, golden eagles can compare to considerably larger animals (such as bobcats!) with regard to their macrophagous capabilities, and regarding prey size in relation to their body weight, they are unbeaten.
The other point was that if a bird of prey can kill a Felis catus, it could likely apply the same hunting technique sucessfully to any other cat when correcting for size (hope you got that now!). But that belonged on another topic.
|
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on May 7, 2014 22:53:11 GMT 5
That "tiny, skinny, small" serval did not have the fur coloration of a serval kitten, that’s it. I’m not saying it must be fully mature tough, In fact the odds are that it was not, since the martial eagle could apparently lift it for a short distance. But it’s probably still around the weight of the eagle, so it’s not such an unimpressive kill the way you seem to believe. Again, you are underestimating how much larger birds of prey look (and how much more potent their weapons are) compared to other animals of the same body mass. Again, I presume you are going to back all that up with proof? Every single description of domestic and feral cats pronounces their impressive physique and capabilities. There’s a reason for that. No cat has an extremely damaging bite, which is the reason they rely so much on precision and grappling, and compared to an eagle’s any cat’s claws are small (in fact a harpy eagle’s claws are longer than a siberian tiger’s). If long limbs are an advantage in a fight, servals are surely among the most formidable cats, along with cheetahs… Irrelevant, eagles and hawks are also much smaller than Kelenken. They don’t? Well how about accipitrid predation on them? You haven’t had a lot of experience with normal house cats in your life, have you? I’ll reiterate here since you obviously still haven’t gotten the point. This is not relevant. First of all, I’m not talking about bobcats here. In case you haven’t noticed, nothing about this thread has any connection to bobcats. The whole argument derived from your assertion, that must admittedly have been made without much thought, that there were no other predators today as inpressive as felines in absolute or relative terms. If it’s just that you feel as if you could not admit your claim was premature; that really shouldn’t worry you to the extent of rather going through this. Accipitrids are clearly predators that operate on a higher trophic level than (and occasionally prey on) similar-sized felines. Fact: house, feral or wild cats have never killed foxes, racoons, opossums, coyotes, wolves, pronghorn, caribou, mule or white tailed deer. In fact, golden eagles can compare to considerably larger animals (such as bobcats!) with regard to their macrophagous capabilities, and regarding prey size in relation to their body weight, they are unbeaten. The other point was that if a bird of prey can kill a Felis catus, it could likely apply the same hunting technique sucessfully to any other cat when correcting for size (hope you got that now!). But that belonged on another topic. Ok good, so you have no evidence to back your claim of the serval being a adult.  As you can see, that is EXACTLY what a serval kitten looks like. So you are wrong with the "different fur" argument. The rest of you arguments seem to be pointless. I don't think you even know what you're debating at this point. I have had 2 cats in my life and I am fully aware what their personalities are like. So if you are still trying to compare a domestic house cat to a wild cat, especially a cat who is built like a panthera, than you are just flaunting ignorance at this point. Sorry bud. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 8, 2014 2:01:55 GMT 5
What you are showing there isn’t a kitten, it’s a half-grown. This→ is what I mean. You get the picture. The servals in question were likely about the size of a martial eagle, the fur coloration isn’t consistent with an animal considerably smaller. I’m getting the impression it isn’t me who has forgotten what he is debating. You are the one who seems to mistake this for some sort of comparison between eagles and felids. Sure, eagles prey on cats, but that’s not my point. My point (the one you were debating for some inexplicable reason) was that there are other extant predators that can kill very impressive prey compared to themselves. I have shown scientific papers proving that–it is a plain fact. Your arguments are the pointless ones. You have done absolutely nothing supporting your assertion, and nothing I found seems to do so either. Maximum prey size of cats in relation to their own size seems comparable to that of komodo dragons and birds of prey, and that is actually well-documented. Period. |
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on May 8, 2014 3:26:02 GMT 5
That is a kitten. No matter how you slice it. And no way was the serval the size of the eagle. The eagle would not be able to carry it. “On a wide-open beach, I have no doubt that an eagle with a full head of steam could pick up a six- or eight-pound dog and just keep on going,” Clarke said. “If it landed to kill a ten-pounder, and then tried to pick up and fly from a dead stop, could it get off the ground? Probably not.” www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=343Female serval get up to 26lbs and males up to 40lbs both far to large for a Martial eagle to carry up to a tree. A martial eagle gets up to 13 lbs and since its impossible for a eagle to carry a animal larger than itself, let a lone a animal twice or three times larger than itself, after all other proof is presented, this is the sealer. That is a kitten, its small, is limbs are small, and its not even close to the size of the eagle. These are all what you call, facts! You are the one trying to compare a eagle preying on a animal smaller than itself to a tiger preying on a 1000kg Gaur or a much larger rhino or elephant. And that was before you tried to claim that tigers don't prey on elephant or rhino at all. So what argument are you trying to say? You tell me? Is it, eagles prey on house cats? Eagles hunt larger prey than themselves? What? Because at the end of the day, they don't come close to comparing to the size discrepancy that occurs with big cats. I love this "I have shown scientific papers proving that–it is a plain fact." Haha Like which scientific papers are you speaking of??? Like when you tried to claim the Pronghorn was preyed upon, then I showed the actual person who photoed the instance stating the pronghorn got away. Or you showing the sika deer that never is shown to be killed. Still waiting on "scientific papers"  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 8, 2014 16:28:52 GMT 5
Great attitude! It would probably be able to carry it. According to this source, golden eagles can carry prey over 5kg. Martial eagles, being similar in size and ecological role, could likely do so too: books.google.at/books?id=hlIztc05HTQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raptors+of+the+world&hl=de&sa=X&ei=R2drU6HIJOyd7gawiIGABA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=golden%20eagle&f=falseExactly, "get up to". And elephants get up to 9t, and hippos get up to 4t, and tigers get up to over 300kg, but thats not very relevant. This is an animal with the proportions, size and fur coloration of an adult or subadult. I have already proven that golden eagles prey on mule deer, adult caribou, calves, adult sheep, goats, pronghorn... All MUCH larger than themselves! You spreading false claims won't help your point either. Cats are not the unrivalled most impressive predators in the extant world. Strange, because they actually seem to exceed it! www.jstor.org/stable/3783664www.jstor.org/stable/2424254www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/96pubs/96-77.pdfnsu.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/00pubs/00-41.pdfAll posted previously, you can check for yourself! That you have ignored them is a very bad sign. Unequivocal evidence of golden eagles killing adult reindeer and domestic sheep (which are 20 times their own weight), as well as attacking calves between 41 and 114kg, and preying on countless other species of large prey animal. Pronghorn IS preyed upon by golden eagles, this has been documented in scientific papers. That this one made an escape does not mean golden eagles do not prey on pronghorn. I was not the one to show that sika deer. You were the one who brought it up. Golden eagles have killed much larger things tough. If you go on like this, ignoring them whenever I post them, you'll have to wait a very long time... |
|
pckts
Junior Member
Posts: 158
|
Post by pckts on May 8, 2014 22:02:53 GMT 5
5kg is not even close to 27lbs (female servale) or 40lbs (male serval)
Glad you proved my point there.
I like your posting of domestic cattle and reindeer calves (states that specifically). What does that have to do with anything we are talking about?
If you want to use the 2 lynx that the study claims, then you need to see age, sex, whether they were scavenged etc.
And of course, it says nothing on that.
But what it did say is 80% of the goldens diet is hares, rodents and squirrels,
and lastly it states no account. No witness, no predation attempts or who saw them, etc.
It is probably based off of items found in a nest. And............ since birds of prey scavenge quite often, animals can end up in a nest that where not preyed upon. Since only 2 bobcats, (definitely cubs, only bobcat light enough for a eagle to carry to a nest,) where found in the entire study yet 80% of the animals are small rodents aside from the domestic cats which only weigh 7-10lbs usually that is pretty clear cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 8, 2014 23:22:35 GMT 5
Not so glad you still didn’t get my point. You listed the maximum weights. Maximum weights aren’t important on this matter.The average, and in this case even the minimum weight of adults are the relevant points. Well, I can’t help but notice there are many points you like or even love about my posts and those of others. So why all the denialism?  Renideer calves are preyed on by golden eagles, sure. The study I posted exlicitely lists 9 cases of calves and 3 cases of adult females killed by the eagles. I find it quite strange your comprehension of the topic you are discussing seems to fluctuate that much. In your last post, you seemed perfectly aware of it, and now you have forgot it again? Your own words might help you there: "You are the one trying to compare a eagle preying on a animal smaller than itself to a tiger preying on a 1000kg Gaur or a much larger rhino or elephant. "Irrespective of that line being completely wrong, it at least hits the core of the problem: Eagles take prey just as large relative to themselves as tigers do, if not larger. Aquila cryhsaetos in Europe and North America weigh 4-5kg on average (lets assume they were females and take 5kg), adult reindeer typically 100±20kg. Do the math! I don’t need to. So what? That obviously doesn’t lessen their capabilities in killing huge prey compared to themselves. No, the paper is a literature survey. It lists cases reported in the scientific literature (In your language "something better than a newspaper"). I highly doubt they found adult sheep in the eagle’s nest… Well, I’m getting the impression you didn’t have a very good look at that study. It lists 127 cases of mule deer and 130 cases of sheep and goat! And you might want to have a look at bobcat’s diet (a felid that is on average ~2 times the weight of a golden eagle!), their preferred prey are also rodents… It is normal for predators to mostly feed on smaller prey. Cats do that too. But the abilities of these predators in bringing down large prey are impressive nevertheless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 6:03:46 GMT 5
Kelenken wins due to range advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 3:39:54 GMT 5
Kelenken wins. One hit can pretty much cripple the tiger.
|
|
morty
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by morty on Jul 4, 2019 8:38:34 GMT 5
Interesting match-up, however, i must give it to the tiger.
Both seem to be roughly the same weight, now, would you really favor an avian over a cat at parity? Probably not.
Kelenken appears formidable, but im unsure just how much damage that beak is capable of producing, seeing as most birds today, even the ones with large, hooked beaks (compared to body size) usually kill with their talons/feets.
Would also like to point out that the one place where big grounded bird vs cats play out in current time, heavily favors the cat (ostrich vs big cats in Africa), if they manage to catch up to it that is.
Is it fair of me to compare the relatively docile ostrich to a carnivirous bird like Kelenken? Not at all, but its worth noting though, that the ostrich has a significant size advantage on the cheetah and yet the cheetah prey on it, Kelenken may not even have a size advantage on the tiger.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jul 4, 2019 17:26:53 GMT 5
Interesting match-up, however, i must give it to the tiger. Both seem to be roughly the same weight, now, would you really favor an avian over a cat at parity? Probably not. Kelenken appears formidable, but im unsure just how much damage that beak is capable of producing, seeing as most birds today, even the ones with large, hooked beaks (compared to body size) usually kill with their talons/feets. Would also like to point out that the one place where big grounded bird vs cats play out in current time, heavily favors the cat (ostrich vs big cats in Africa), if they manage to catch up to it that is. Is it fair of me to compare the relatively docile ostrich to a carnivirous bird like Kelenken? Not at all, but its worth noting though, that the ostrich has a significant size advantage on the cheetah and yet the cheetah prey on it, Kelenken may not even have a size advantage on the tiger. Just thought it's worth noting, Kelenken is thought to have kicked with a metric ton of force. It's on a website which you should NOT join, but square-cube calculations seem to hold up |
|
morty
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by morty on Jul 5, 2019 13:41:54 GMT 5
Hmm, thats roughly the force of an ostrichs kick, isnt it?
Powerful indeed, but this bird is quite a bit bigger than the ostrich, so surely it will kick even harder?
Maybe im getting wrong info, i've read somewhere that the ostrich can kick with about one metric ton of force as well.
Not saying its an easy win for the tiger, Kelenken certainly has the weapons to kill it, but i'd just imagine that the cats agility will come through here, just my theory anyways.
|
|
