Dogs. Since dogs basically co-evolved with humans, they are basically equal speed. Sure there are some dogs that can run much faster, but there are also some who are much slower, and they don't do so well in the heat. So there must be some dogs that are the same speed as a well trained human under certain distances and conditions.
Hardloper wrote:
there must be some dogs that are the same speed as a well trained human
which ones specifically, and with proof.
I have cited experts proving the black mamba can hang with trained human runners over distance.
Where do you get this information about poisoning before the chase from? From Mythbusters?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Persistence hunting by humans bears no relationship to what predators like hunting dogs and wolves can do.
From Wikipaedia again for you:
A persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period of time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Without their sustained speed it has to be different for humans, and our weapons for wounding or disabling the prey before pursuing it have been crucial to succeeding.
This is exactly the point. There is no sustained 'speed' , think of it as an Ultra with a lot of stops, or are you one of those that blast out at top speed for every distance, see the likes of that at every race.
Modern day 'scientists' have tried to debunk these chases by saying that the prey would not have left much of a print on the hard soil, so they 'must have disabled the prey by surprise before any chase', and with experiments using modern man to race against animals.
However, despite the Kalahari not being that hard, they do actually track the prey. They still do so.
Even today, Aborigines are still used as tracker in the Aussie outback to help solve crimes
It seems the Kalahari Bushmen and Aussie outback Aborigines are smarter than some scientists...and some on this board.
Any predator like a lion, tiger, etc. It would catch the human in the first 25 yards and kill him and then would walk it in from there. Unfair? Maybe, but IT’S AN ANIMAL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjKiYW4B9m8Bye Son wrote:
American bison are actually surprisingly good runners. They can hit nearly 40 mph (WAY faster than Bolt) and easily sustain 20 mph over several miles (putting Bekele to shame).
I am Sam wrote:
Where do you get this information about poisoning before the chase from? From Mythbusters?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Persistence hunting by humans bears no relationship to what predators like hunting dogs and wolves can do.
From Wikipaedia again for you:
A persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period of time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Without their sustained speed it has to be different for humans, and our weapons for wounding or disabling the prey before pursuing it have been crucial to succeeding.
This is exactly the point. There is no sustained 'speed' , think of it as an Ultra with a lot of stops, or are you one of those that blast out at top speed for every distance, see the likes of that at every race.
Modern day 'scientists' have tried to debunk these chases by saying that the prey would not have left much of a print on the hard soil, so they 'must have disabled the prey by surprise before any chase', and with experiments using modern man to race against animals.
However, despite the Kalahari not being that hard, they do actually track the prey. They still do so.
Even today, Aborigines are still used as tracker in the Aussie outback to help solve crimes
It seems the Kalahari Bushmen and Aussie outback Aborigines are smarter than some scientists...and some on this board.
OK Born to runaphile.
I am Sam wrote:
Where do you get this information about poisoning before the chase from? From Mythbusters?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Persistence hunting by humans bears no relationship to what predators like hunting dogs and wolves can do.
From Wikipaedia again for you:
A persistence hunter must be able to run a long distance over an extended period of time. The strategy is used by a variety of canids such as African wild dogs, and by human hunter-gatherers.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Without their sustained speed it has to be different for humans, and our weapons for wounding or disabling the prey before pursuing it have been crucial to succeeding.
This is exactly the point. There is no sustained 'speed' , think of it as an Ultra with a lot of stops, or are you one of those that blast out at top speed for every distance, see the likes of that at every race.
Modern day 'scientists' have tried to debunk these chases by saying that the prey would not have left much of a print on the hard soil, so they 'must have disabled the prey by surprise before any chase', and with experiments using modern man to race against animals.
However, despite the Kalahari not being that hard, they do actually track the prey. They still do so.
Even today, Aborigines are still used as tracker in the Aussie outback to help solve crimes
It seems the Kalahari Bushmen and Aussie outback Aborigines are smarter than some scientists...and some on this board.
It's actually been demonstrated in documentaries. There was one in particular called "The Death Run", that showed how Bushmen hunted antelope. They stalked the animal, wounded it with a poison arrow and then pursued it to its exhaustion and collapse, finishing it off with a spear thrust. That isn't the kind of sustained effort of a pack of hunting dogs (or wolves), which pursue their prey at a much greater speed - often averaging 35kph - and without wounding their prey before the chase, and their quarry is always visible to them, unlike the Bushmen who have to track the wounded antelope while it has outrun them.
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's actually been demonstrated in documentaries. There was one in particular called "The Death Run", that showed how Bushmen hunted antelope. They stalked the animal, wounded it with a poison arrow and then pursued it to its exhaustion and collapse, finishing it off with a spear thrust. That isn't the kind of sustained effort of a pack of hunting dogs (or wolves), which pursue their prey at a much greater speed - often averaging 35kph - and without wounding their prey before the chase, and their quarry is always visible to them, unlike the Bushmen who have to track the wounded antelope while it has outrun them.
OK.
I have seen documentaries too and have seen them do it as well in the area.
I never said that they are running at sustained speed, have always said they outlast the prey, which is what they do. When they catch up, they poison dart the prey to make things easier, sometimes that happens early and the prey gets up again.
Think of it this way. It is a race of undetermined distance, first one to collapse, loses. If you catch up with opponent or if they take too long a break, you are able to disable them in some way.
There are no directions, the leader sets it. The prints act like course markers.
Bushmen have won a lot of these 'races' over thousands of years. They 'outrun' or outlast the prey
Now if the OP was rephrased as " If an animal attacks you, which ones can you outrun", then the Bushman loses.
cheers
I am Sam wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
It's actually been demonstrated in documentaries. There was one in particular called "The Death Run", that showed how Bushmen hunted antelope. They stalked the animal, wounded it with a poison arrow and then pursued it to its exhaustion and collapse, finishing it off with a spear thrust. That isn't the kind of sustained effort of a pack of hunting dogs (or wolves), which pursue their prey at a much greater speed - often averaging 35kph - and without wounding their prey before the chase, and their quarry is always visible to them, unlike the Bushmen who have to track the wounded antelope while it has outrun them.
OK.
I have seen documentaries too and have seen them do it as well in the area.
I never said that they are running at sustained speed, have always said they outlast the prey, which is what they do. When they catch up, they poison dart the prey to make things easier, sometimes that happens early and the prey gets up again.
Think of it this way. It is a race of undetermined distance, first one to collapse, loses. If you catch up with opponent or if they take too long a break, you are able to disable them in some way.
There are no directions, the leader sets it. The prints act like course markers.
Bushmen have won a lot of these 'races' over thousands of years. They 'outrun' or outlast the prey
Now if the OP was rephrased as " If an animal attacks you, which ones can you outrun", then the Bushman loses.
cheers
You persist in a fundamental misunderstanding - your version of "persistence" hunting. Bushmen don't shoot the animal with a poisoned arrow at the end of the chase; there is no need. It has already collapsed. It is finished off by spear. But the chase begins after they have wounded it with the poisoned arrow. As I said at the beginning of your persistent misunderstanding - it's a clear form of race handicapping. I mean, really - how stupid would they be not to reduce the capacity of their prey to escape? They are trying to prove their "ultra-running" skills? They still need them even with a wounded animal.
Hardloper wrote:
Dogs. Since dogs basically co-evolved with humans, they are basically equal speed. Sure there are some dogs that can run much faster, but there are also some who are much slower, and they don't do so well in the heat. So there must be some dogs that are the same speed as a well trained human under certain distances and conditions.
A chihuahua?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
Dogs. Since dogs basically co-evolved with humans, they are basically equal speed. Sure there are some dogs that can run much faster, but there are also some who are much slower, and they don't do so well in the heat. So there must be some dogs that are the same speed as a well trained human under certain distances and conditions.
A chihuahua?
Bassett Hound. It was bred so that peasants without horses could keep up with the hunt.
What they could have possibly been chasing that ran so slow is a mystery though.
the legless deer? wrote:
What they could have possibly been chasing that ran so slow is a mystery though.
Not necessarily slow. Maybe they were persistence hunters and the Bassett Hound wore down its quarry over hundreds of miles.
Bad Wigins wrote:
the legless deer? wrote:
What they could have possibly been chasing that ran so slow is a mystery though.
Not necessarily slow. Maybe they were persistence hunters and the Bassett Hound wore down its quarry over hundreds of miles.
Apparently they chased the ancestors of the Scots from the south of England to the north, where they have remained ever since. Poisoned arrows not needed. Brexit does just as good a job.
I think Cheetah is an even match for humans in a race.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
Not necessarily slow. Maybe they were persistence hunters and the Bassett Hound wore down its quarry over hundreds of miles.
Apparently they chased the ancestors of the Scots from the south of England to the north, where they have remained ever since. Poisoned arrows not needed. Brexit does just as good a job.
Just a tip, don't try to be funny in Bad Wigins style. It's just painfully awkward.
old and tired schtick wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Apparently they chased the ancestors of the Scots from the south of England to the north, where they have remained ever since. Poisoned arrows not needed. Brexit does just as good a job.
Just a tip, don't try to be funny in Bad Wigins style. It's just painfully awkward.
But you, on the other hand, are famous for your sense of humour. Well, maybe not.
Armstronglivs wrote:
old and tired schtick wrote:
Just a tip, don't try to be funny in Bad Wigins style. It's just painfully awkward.
But you, on the other hand, are famous for your sense of humour. Well, maybe not.
Not. And I'm not trying to be humorous. Neither should you.
old and tired schtick wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But you, on the other hand, are famous for your sense of humour. Well, maybe not.
Not. And I'm not trying to be humorous. Neither should you.
And this is such a serious thread, deserving to be taken very seriously - especially by you, even though it was started by Bad Wigins, of whom you so much approve. I can see why you are not trying to be humorous. It's a foreign country for someone like you. But since you also presume to be expert on the subject, give us an example of your coruscating wit.
Armstronglivs wrote:
old and tired schtick wrote:
Not. And I'm not trying to be humorous. Neither should you.
And this is such a serious thread, deserving to be taken very seriously - especially by you, even though it was started by Bad Wigins, of whom you so much approve. I can see why you are not trying to be humorous. It's a foreign country for someone like you. But since you also presume to be expert on the subject, give us an example of your coruscating wit.
You're having trouble reading. The thread can still be taken seriously since it's a valid subject. At no point did I suggest Wigins has ever been funny. That was my point. Don't emulate him.
4 pages, 80 posts, only 11 of them by me including this one - an average of only 2.1 per page of 20, with an original non-clickbait topic, complete with several days of entertaining discussions about horses, dogs, persistence hunting, fish, and even snakes... and NOW you come barging in anonymously with this bitter heckling? You need to work on your timing.