Talk:Cattle mutilation/Unusual behavior

Unusual behavior

Animals avoiding other dead animals is considered 'unusual'. I am restoring it and adding link to a report verifying this.

perfectblue 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Virtualy all animals avoid dead members of their own species. It's an adaptation to avoid disease. Jefffire 12:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you grew up on a farm. Me, I can virtually throw a rock and hit a sheep. Horses have a natural aversion to death and excrement (For example, they won't feed where they poop), but cows don't. They might not come within a few feet or a carcass, but they won't be distressed. I'll find you a link.

perfectblue 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about what we can cite, rather than what we know, I can cite this

after an animal has been mutilated the rest of the herd behaves strangely and will keep their distance from the carcass for days. They look afraid and are in visible distress. A Utah rancher reported that the horse he was riding became very nervous when it saw a mutilated cow. The horse started to snort and would not go near the cow.........Animals that die of natural causes do not seem to trigger the same type of reaction from other animals. On a recent trip to a Nevada ranch (Dec. 1996), a dead cow was found on a pasture close to the highway. The cause of death appeared to be distocia. Part of an oversized calf was engaged in the pelvic tract, but the birth could not be finalized. The exhausting efforts of the cow resulted in her death. The carcass was not removed for over ten days. Animals grazing in the immediate area were not bothered by the carcass.

ANIMAL MUTILATIONS: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW (http://www.nidsci.org/articles/animal2.php)

George E. Onet

perfectblue 13:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironicaly, animals grazing normaly around a dead individual is actual unusual behaviour. My guess is that Onet is exaggerating, or outright fabricating. Jefffire 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for the answer to my question. Are you the town mouse or the country mouse? Me, until las year, I lived in a small town surrounded by feilds as far as the eye could see. Cattle will not graze within a few feet of a carcass, but they won't be paniced by it.

perfectblue 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the countryside, 15 years. We were surrounded by cows, it was the local specialty. We were surrounded by other aninimal too, but no wild large predators as I live in Britian. I've studied forensic entymology (the actions of insects on a dead body) as well as natural decomposition. I've personaly seen cases of animal decomposing exactly as described in most of these cases (except for allegations of superheated collagen). I'm also familur with horses, it doesn't take a lot to panic one. Jefffire 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better answer. Did do general Forensic Entymology or branch off into Criminal Forensic Entymology.

I take it that your studies include a fair bit on the agrigultural and vetinary chemicals that can inhibit or prevent lavi development in carcasses etc. A number of these reports report no or minamal magot infestation after a sustained period, and some even say that there significant numbers of dead flies on/around mutilated cattle and no magots whatsoever (reports aren't consistant so I haven't included it on the page right now).

perfectblue 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all comsumption is by maggots. Most oppertunists will take a pop at exposed eyes if able, even if just for the moisture. Cow skin in very tough, so after eyes and other soft tissue has been consumed, it would not be odd for the animal to have little other decomposers. These reports are all of very dubious quality, which is why I recommend that we keep quite close to WP:RS. Jefffire 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, maggots and other insects. You don't deal with rodents etc and you didn't grow up with much more than crows and wealse chewing on your cows, so I can't really ask you to comment professionally on them.

"These reports are all of very dubious quality......WP:RS"

The FBI released quite a few reports back in the 70s. Are they reliable? Plus, WP:RS doesn't apply in some of these cases as we are talking about speculation and conspiracies, in essence what is believed and what is touted about, rather than hard science from reputable people. If we went only for WP:RS, this article would start and finish with natural causes and that FBI investigation.

perfectblue 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This subject involves a specialty of mine. I don't think it is a good idea to disregard my opinionsj ust because they diverge from those of George E. Onet, Ph.D (Ph.d in what?). From now on I'm going to have to insist that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV#faq:Pseudoscience are adhered to strictly. If there is nothing but kooks making wild claims about this subject, that's not my problem. Jefffire 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Onet's Ph.d that counts it's the fact that he's a qualified vet. He's been published/quoted in the journal Vetinary Medicine a couple of times on non mutilation related topics so regular vets take him seriously when he's talking about serious topics.

As for WP:V, most big name journals will either ignore this topic or will tend to come down heavily on the skeptics side if only to preserve their reputations when it comes to the serious stuff, and the NIDS does have qualified and verified scientists working for it, so it count as WP:V in my book at least as far as this topic goes. I'm trying to maintain som NPOV by including pro and anti arguments, but it's not that easy without blanked denials or kook reports.

perfectblue 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No those aren't reliable sources. Wikipedia is built on a bedrock of authority. Right or wrong it is built into the founding guidelines that peer reviewed journals and government institutions are reliable sources, whilst organisations like NIDS aren't. If you feel that is unjust, then the talk page of WP:RS is there for you to make your case. Jefffire 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you are dealing with speculation, hypothesis or popular myths, you need to list the sources of these things and to cite examples of them, to prove that they exist and that you didn't make them up yourself.

I don't think that the scientific credibility of the source is the most important thing in this case. What is important is that we have a sample of the most common facts/myths and the reasoning behind them (with examples). I'm not putting the NIDS in because I believe their reports to be accurate, I'm putting them in because proponents believe them to be accurate and base their hypothesiss on them, and because I'm talking about these hypothesis I have to say where they come from and why they exist. I'm showing why people believe, not that what they beloeve is correct.

For example, if 1 million people believe X because it was written in newspaper Y, you should cite Y as a source for X, even if Y was discredited years ago as being a fake or a hoax. You can say that it was a hoax or a fake, or that is it shakey and unreliable, but you should sill cite Y as it is the source of the myth.

perfectblue 08:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that you are presenting myths and assertations as fact, not as opinion. Jefffire 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to present it as being the opinion of proponents and to show why they thought that way. But you didn't like it when I did. You can't have it both ways. Either I can present something as opinion and show evidence that this opinion exists, or I can present something as fact and show the reports to prove it. If I don't do this all that we will have is a sectio about two vets shouting at each other over whether 'that mark' is from a tooth or a knife.

FYI, claim is the correct verb here for anything that is casual or acusational in nature, while report and state are correct for anything that is structured. Regardless of their accuracy.

For example, when a farmer says that he saw a black heliopter interfering with his animals, he claims, he is claiming, or he is making a claim. When a policeman writes it down he reports, is or is reporting. The same when discussing these things. When talking about the farmer, you use claim, when talking about a police officer or scientist, you use report.

perfectblue 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting me again. The section in question was calling common behaviour "unusual" and presenting this as fact. It was a clear factual inaccuracy. You haven't yet tried to present this as opinion yet. Jefffire 13:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the bit that I was talking about. But in this case I've heard a number of acounts of farmers who say pretty much the same thing. I consider it to be factual.

perfectblue 13:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American ranchers aren't exactly world renown for their intelligence (we only need to read the article to see that). If you can find a mainstream scientific source which says that the avoidance of the dead by cattle is "unusual" then that will be sufficient. Jefffire 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the mainstream journals password protect their archieve and only let paying customers in. You're far more likely to subscribe than me, you check them.

perfectblue 09:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]