Getting tired of it...

[Nanci]

Sorry- I don't know how to do separate quotes- actually, I probably do, now! But you can tell who is me, I think, anyway...

Nanci

 

[tyflier]

I don't know that wild Mustangs were ever completely or truly domesticated. There have always been wild herds, just in diminished numbers. It is these "always wild" herds that are re-populating the species, no?

Feral pigs and chickens in Florida...not a whole lot of land-dwelling predators there, I don't imagine. Loads of aquatic and amphibious, and a few Panthers left about, but other than that, what predators are there large enough to consider a full grown pig as "prey"? Same reason they fluorish in Australia...simply not enough natural land predators. All they really need to do is avoid the water.

Now...put those feral pigs in the Pacific Nowrthwest with a clan of brown bears, some mountain lions, a few Candaian Lynx, a pack of wolves, a couple hundred coyotes, and some smaller black bears just for fun...how long do you think they would last?

"Wild" pigeons came from pet-stock, sure. But how many generations before they began to flourish as a wild population? How many "released pets" roosted on buildings eating scraps of food and mis-placed pet feed before they started to forage through Central Park for their natural food sources?

I'm not saying that pet-stock CAN"T revert to a wild state. Obviously, it happens.

But how long will 2 golden retrievers last on their own in the desert or Pacific Northwest? Or even south Florida? And if they have a litter, how many of them will survive? And how many generations of "trial-and-error" learning will it take before the instincts to hunt and survive are re-instilled in the population? Same question for cats, hamsters, gerbils, pigeons, CB parakeets, horses, cows, pigs, and small children. :shrugs:

Again, I don't really know the answers to these questions. It just makes me think, and that is something I enjoy doing, whether or not I am good at it. "Devil's Advocate" is a name I have been called on more than one occasion...

 

[Weebonilass]

Horses, pigs, and chickens don't survive very long without human interaction. At least not those that have been domesticated. Horses end up lame from improper foot treatments, pigs end up food for other predators and chickens...well...chickens just die off. This is true in the U.S., to my knowledge. In other parts of the world, it may be different, such as Australia, where those particular animals have very few natural predators, especially when living inland and away from constant water supplies.

Actually, horses will revert very quickly. It was quite common in the old days for ranchers to turn loose registered stock to upgrade the horses running the range.

I know a ranch in Nebraska that runs their horses in herds in 5,000 acres. They are herded in at 3 yrs old, 30 days are put on them and then they are turned back out until they are sold. They live, breed, foal and survive with no human interaction, although I assume that they might drop hay in a rough winter, but it's not something standard in their procedure.

It's not uncommon at all for horses to be turned loose or end up loose in the western states. Wild horses are feral horses... so the theory that the horses won't survive without humans just doesn't cut it.

 

[PnyKlr]

Pigs revert very quickly as well. There was a special on National Geographic about "Hogzilla." Don't quote me on this, but I believe it only takes about 3 weeks for a domesticated pig to begin turning into a "wild" pig (longer hair, tusks), but the pigs have a different shape to them if they revert (mostly in the head I think).

 

[Drizzt80]

But it usually takes several generations for this occure, doesn't it? The first generation to be released back to the wild after domestication doesn't survive for very long, does it?(and I am honestly asking. I don't claim to know the answers to those questions.)

If they take several generations to survive . . . how did the second generation come to be if the first generation was unable to survive . . . etc. etc. :sidestep: (You can probably add parrots to your list of 'feral' as well! and don't forget to include space for plants in your definition. )

Here's some domestication links for ya:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...sticated&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
(I'm not a huge wikipedia fan, but . . .)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

Just lending a helping hand . . .
D80

 

[dionythicus]

Now...put those feral pigs in the Pacific Nowrthwest with a clan of brown bears, some mountain lions, a few Candaian Lynx, a pack of wolves, a couple hundred coyotes, and some smaller black bears just for fun...how long do you think they would last?

Pigs revert back to a feral state quicker than any other animal. They physically change within weeks, growing more body hair, gaining muscle mass, etc. to make them essentially as wild as their primitive ancestors. No other domesticated animal is known to do that. I would rather face a bear than a feral boar.

Boy has this thread gone every which way AND loose.

 

[Drizzt80]

I don't know that wild Mustangs were ever completely or truly domesticated. There have always been wild herds, just in diminished numbers. It is these "always wild" herds that are re-populating the species, no?

Did you know that horses are not native to these United States?! The wild population of mustangs was at one time domesticated to begin with.

Feral pigs and chickens in Florida...not a whole lot of land-dwelling predators there,

. . .but what does that have to do with your argument about domestication . . . survival depends on more than escaping predators . . .

The following two quotes don't 'mesh' real well . . .

How many "released pets" roosted on buildings eating scraps of food and mis-placed pet feed before they started to forage through Central Park for their natural food sources?

When I think "domesticated", I think reliant upon human interaction for life.

No animal is truly domesticated by your initial thoughts (which I believe should be changing by now reading some of your arguments) as they are not completely reliant as a species on human interaction for life.

That's the beauty of life, it will find a way to survive . . . or die trying. :grin01:
D80

 

[tyflier]

It appears from the links provided that the term "domesticated" has an incredibly varied definition, and *could* be applied to just about any animal.

According to this definition:

Domesticated animals, plants, and other organisms are those whose collective behavior, life cycle, or physiology has been altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions being under human control for multiple generations. Humans have brought these populations under their care for a wide range of reasons: for help with various types of work, to produce food or valuable commodities (such as wool, cotton, or silk), and to enjoy as pets or ornamental plants.

Every animal kept in a zoo or wildlife park could be considered domesticated under the last sentence.

These definitions:

To adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans.

animals which humans have tamed over many years, to be kept in captivity, bred and used for their own special purposes (ie, dogs, cats, cows, horses, etc.)

*could* definitively eliminate a good many "pet species" as they really don't provide any specialized purposes other than ornamentation.

This one caught my attention:

A plant or animal that has been altered by human beings through selective breeding. Some plants and animals have been so altered in this way, they can no longer survive without human intervention.

I added the boldface.

And I would strongly question the validity of "domestication" in a good number of the animals listed here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ticated_animals. Rhinos? Elephants and Orcas? I believe some of those animals listed clearly show that the term "tolerant" is much more applicable than "tame" or domesticated.

Again...I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I interpret the word "domesticated" differently than some of you. There is nothing wrong with that. Clearly there are several different definitions for the word "domesticated", and, IMO, snakes simply do not "fit the bill" as it were.

With a word such as domesticated, there are criteria that will need to be met in order for the term to apply. Some animals, it is very clear, such as dogs, cats, hamsters, horses, pigs, chickens, goats, cows. Other animals, the definition is not so clear, and is open to intrepretation, such as snakes, lizards, rhinocerii, elephants, orcas. I simply see reason to use a more specific set of criteria to determine "domestication" than some of you...and that's OK. It still doesn't make anyone right or wrong, per se. It is a word that is *very* open to interpretation...

 

[tyflier]

Did you know that horses are not native to these United States?! The wild population of mustangs was at one time domesticated to begin with.

No...I didn't. Thanks for the info, though.

survival depends on more than escaping predators . . .

You're absolutely right. But you would probably want to learn that one first. fewer predators increases you chances of survival, which increases your chances of reverting back to a wild state. If those pigs that were first released were killed before they reproduced...there wouldn't be any there.

No animal is truly domesticated by your initial thoughts (which I believe should be changing by now reading some of your arguments) as they are not completely reliant as a species on human interaction for life.

Again...you're absolutely right, on all points. I AM changing my thoughts a bit on it. I do still believe that there is a big difference between "domesticated" and "tolerant", but not quite as definitive as what I first posted. And isn't that what these exchanges are for? :grin01:

 

[Weebonilass]

If they take several generations to survive . . . how did the second generation come to be if the first generation was unable to survive . . . etc. etc. :sidestep: (You can probably add parrots to your list of 'feral' as well! and don't forget to include space for plants in your definition. )

Here's some domestication links for ya:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...sticated&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
(I'm not a huge wikipedia fan, but . . .)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication

Just lending a helping hand . . .
D80

Very true about the parrots. It's the reason that Quaker Parakeets or Monk Parrots are illegal in a lot of states. They do extremely well in the wild and become pests to the surrounding areas. If I remember right, California is one of the states where it's illegal to own them.

Didn't know that about pigs. I love learning new things.

 

[lefty_mussolini]

If I remember right, California is one of the states where it's illegal to own them.

It is illegal to own everything in California. We have very strict pet laws.

 

[Drizzt80]

I AM changing my thoughts a bit on it. I do still believe that there is a big difference between "domesticated" and "tolerant", but not quite as definitive as what I first posted. And isn't that what these exchanges are for? :grin01:

I was sucked into the exchange merely by your comments about reverting back to the wild. I felt your views on domesticated animals' ability to do that was pretty narrow . . . As for your original definition of domesticated, yes, I agree that there's a level of dependency they have on humans to survive their current situation . . . but that in no way affects their ability to survive in the wild if the need arose! I enjoy my microwave, my yellow jello with whipped cream, my mp3 player and all my other little gadgets and games, but much like a feral pig, if the situation arose I feel as though I could survive in the wild . . . I know of some peers that wouldn't! :eek1:

D80

 

[tyflier]

You're right...it was very narrow. But as I pick up more information from the posted links(thanks), my views change.

I may be jaded and opinionated, but I hope I am not stagnant and immobile ...

 

[carol]

Well, I just got back from a full day at work and another 3 hours of judging 7th grade science fair projects so I won't be able to get to everything but I can start with this...

Labelling and action as being immature, does not necessarily mean that the person engaging in such actions must be immature, Carol. It simply means what it says. Some otherwise mature individuals engaged in behavior that could be considered as being immature.

You can label whoever however you want, all it is is an opinion. What drives me crazy are all the comments like, "So and So left this site, or so and so stopped using chat because *insert the most immature reason I can think up*. And at the same time try and reason by making such comments, you are in no way trying to call this person immature. And with these comments, I'm not just talking about you Rich.

My point has been that NO ONE here can say why anyone did anything, period. It's one thing to say "Hey I think people on that site are immature and here are my factual reasons for backing that up" and saying "Hey these people ARE immature because they did this action with this *insert imaginary immature motive here*.

Just out of curiosity, are you calling the person who made that statement "jumping through hoops" juvenile, or claiming that making the statement was juvenile? How does "juvenile" differ from "immature"?

They don't differ. While reading between the lines you missed where we at least agreed to throw in a new adjective for the heck of variety's sake. This is where you will never see the difference between attacking people with false accusations regarding their motives and presenting how you feel about someone's actions. I made it clear that it was my opinion and my opinion only (not presented as fact) that the act of making that statement was juvenile. Which IMO is a world apart from making a statement like this.....

blckkat[/b]] You can not deny that some people are on the "other forum" just because they threw a fit and refuse to post here anymore.

Even if some members kept up there dual forums here and "there," they aren't posting the same information in this one, where more people frequent. I would like to keep up on the ACR, but I can't now. I would like to keep up with Carol's, CCCorns & others breeding plans for 2007, but I can't now

It's all in the delivery. There is "this is how I feel about that" and there is "I know for a fact this is a person's motives".

Evidently this is a burr under your saddle and you are inclined to let the sores created by it fester, rather than just plucking it out and moving on yourself.

In all honesty Rich, I had removed the burr. And comments like Steph's post stick it right back in. Believe me, I want to bury this one more than anyone else. Unfortunately, when people rehash it by making false accusaitions that people left because of chat... it puts that burr right back in there.

I was mentioned by name, and it was strongly implied that me not "posting the same information in this one(forum)" was part of some sort of immature fit. She is right, there are things I have posted on the other forum that I haven't posted here. And guess what? I believe my reasons for doing so to be very mature and certainly have NOTHING to with any animosity toward this site and even more certianly has NOTHING to do with the chat discussion.

So again, I find myself trying to remove a burr, but at the same time explaining to everyone why they saw a little "buck" outta me.

You obviously WANT that chat issue to fester......

Again, I'm not the one who brought it up, but if someone else brings it up and I see statements regarding it that are totally false, I'm gonna talk.

As for what those people left are saying, according to you, if there is one rule of thumb that I find most accurate in determining true motives, it is to judge people by what they DO, not what they SAY. This RARELY lets me down.

And exactly what did those people do from spring of 2002-the fall of 2006?

I know you left me more to address, but for now, that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Rich Z]

Carol, you may want to read your last post from an objective point of view. Quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black" there, in my opinion. You are emphatically stating things that are only your opinion as facts, yet belittling others for apparently doing the same thing.

Just because YOU may believe your opinions doesn't necessarily make them facts. And just because others may believe THEIR opinions that differ from yours doesn't necessarily make them false.

IMHO.....

 

[carol]

Well, perhaps I'm doing a poor job of explaining the difference between expressing an opinion on one's actions and believing you can accurately pronounce the motives of others. Sorry.

I'd still love for that last question to be answered.

 

[diamondlil]

These Indian parakeets have escaped from aviaries and are colonising europe now. There are huge flocks in southeast England, but this is one I spotted in Spain.

 

[sfaoldguy]

These Indian parakeets have escaped from aviaries and are colonising europe now. There are huge flocks in southeast England, but this is one I spotted in Spain.

Hmmm. That gives me an idea for my environmental science report...

 

[diamondlil]

Thye are known by several names, ring-necked, rose-winged, but their latin name is Psittacula krameri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose-ringed_Parakeet

 

[sfaoldguy]

Thye are known by several names, ring-necked, rose-winged, but their latin name is Psittacula krameri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose-ringed_Parakeet

Yea, invasive species are one of the topics we can cover. I wish I could do it over the effect of logging on local snake species, but I wouldn't be able to find enough references. I am looking into various invasive species to find one that is well documented. I am going to see how well the effect of large constrictors being released in Florida is documented. It is a really interesting situation where alligators and burmese pythons and the like are competing and even eating each other.