I heard a brief story on the radio this morning about wild pigs causing damage in Oklahoma. Wild pigs? Don't they mean feral pigs?
I heard a brief story on the radio this morning about wild pigs causing damage in Oklahoma. Wild pigs? Don't they mean feral pigs?
The main difference between the two words seems to be a feral animal was once domesticated, but now lives in the wild.
People seem to use the two words interchangeably, so without knowing the content of the story, 'wild' would be the proper term, if the pigs weren't previously domesticated.
Wild and feral are partially the same and different: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-feral-and-vs-wild/. Since it's stated that they caused damage 'feral' would have been the correct term. Without knowing the exact circumstances 'wild' could still be correct too, but not likely.
Depends. Could be Javelina, which are native. Years ago Russian wild boars were released for hunting and have bred with escaped domestic stock, so although feral they are also 'wild'.
Simplest answer is its the mainstream media, where up is down, left is right & riots with arson are mostly peaceful protests. They never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Javelinas are not pigs. At least not the ones in Arizona.
Correct. Their appearance is often confused with razorback pigs. Unlike razorback and other pigs, Javelina are native to SW America and in particular central and south America.
Simplest answer is its the mainstream media
I understand there's a tendency on this site to blame "the mainstream media" for all things bad - but how do you know this was the mainstream media? Is news about "wild hogs" inherently bad? Would a radio station that carried Rush Limbaugh when he was alive now be mainstream media just because it reported on wild hogs in Oklahoma?
I understand there's a tendency on this site to blame "the mainstream media" for all things bad - but how do you know this was the mainstream media?
For me, the biggest problem with much of "Mainstream Media" is that either they are injecting a bias into their reporting, or they are simply fucking lazy as hell.
I participate in several serious military forums, and one thing that drives myself and others crazy is that we will find an article that it was obvious no research was done on at all.
Like last month, when the UK Telegraph wrote one that was titled "New British tanks costing £3.5bn cannot be driven safely over 20mph, reveals leaked report". Well, right away this is very very wrong, because it is talking about the Ajax, which is not even a "tank". It is an armored personnel carrier and not a tank at all. It is like taking a destroyer and calling it a "battleship", or a Piper Cub and calling it a "passenger aircraft".
This is why for decades, I have written to many news agencies and said they needed to get an actual veteran who was knowledgeable in military topics to help edit such stories. That way we will not get idiotic errors like that, or say some article crying that some homeless meth head is being denied his benefits by the VA and was abandoned. Only to later discover the tool never served in the military in the first place. Or like has happened many times, taking the side of the "Vietnam Vet" a few years ago after he confronted some students. Only to later discover he never deployed to Vietnam, and was kicked out of the military for multiple cases of AWOL and other disciplinary actions.
I largely avoid most "news" anymore, because I find the actual "news" content is gone. It is more about editorializing than anything else. I do not want opinions, I just want the relevant facts so I can make up my own mind. Not have it spoon fed to me along with how they think I should feel.
I just want the relevant facts so I can make up my own mind.
Is there something in a news story about wild hogs in Oklahoma that should set off a rant about how the mainstream media is all opinion and no facts? Or is that complaint itself opinion?
Is there something in a news story about wild hogs in Oklahoma that should set off a rant about how the mainstream media is all opinion and no facts? Or is that complaint itself opinion?
No, but the tendency to do little to no actual research does apply. When they can not be bothered to do research and talk about things incorrectly, that is a problem. No matter what it is, because they should be responsible enough to do research and not simply repeat things or inject things they "think they know".
And I do not even look at what the subject is, they should always be responsible enough to provide facts, unless it is purely an "opinion piece" and not itself news.
It is more about editorializing than anything else. I do not want opinions
Its also about sensationalism rather than boring facts.
I largely avoid most "news" anymore, because I find the actual "news" content is gone. It is more about editorializing than anything else. I do not want opinions, I just want the relevant facts so I can make up my own mind. Not have it spoon fed to me along with how they think I should feel.
Rather than avoid it altogether, I read them with a jaded view, taking the few factual and justified claims and ignoring the rest.
That served me well this last year, especially as Apple News starting giving equal weight to the 1,003 new news site which just steal everyone's else story and stick a thoroughly unjustified, outrageous title on it.
As far as Covid-19 news, it's not difficult at all to discern valid details from the multiple 'scare' claims rampant in each article. One you know what's medically possible, it's easy enough ignoring the rest, while still gleaming a few new details.
But that's how I get most of my stories, searching the various 'Science News' reports, looking for new insights into the working universe and then taking them in working them into a story and seeing how they play out. But including claptrap in a decent story will kill it deader than a doornail (has anyone ever seen a 'live' doornail?).
That served me well this last year, especially as Apple News starting giving equal weight to the 1,003 new news site which just steal everyone's else story and stick a thoroughly unjustified, outrageous title on it.
If you categorize Apple News as mainstream media, is there any source you categorize as being outside the mainstream?
If you categorize Apple News as mainstream media, is there any source you categorize as being outside the mainstream?
I was arguing the point, pointing out just how easy it is for a new site to make a name for themselves by floating every fly-by-night outlet story without regard for their credibility or reliability.
While newspapers and reports generally have come professional ethics, there are plenty with none at all, willing to push whatever sells. But that's more the editor or owner's choice, rather than the individual reporters.
Luckily, as every other newspaper was losing money hand over fist during the Trump error, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal upped their game, restaffing their depleted news staffs and are now reaping record profits.
Ethics is its own reward, but it also pays, in the long run. Everyone recognizes scams for what they are ... eventually.
I understand there's a tendency on this site to blame "the mainstream media" for all things bad - but how do you know this was the mainstream media? Is news about "wild hogs" inherently bad?
That is your perception speaking.
Some things are hard to spin, and usually mainstream media reserves their ink for things they can bend or otherwise spin to their perception and or ends. As for a wild hog story in the media, I've seen a few. Usually there is an evil white colonist bent to it.
"riots with arson are mostly peaceful protests. "
The BLM protests consisted by more than than 90% of peaceful marches. There was some violence in a small fraction of those places, sometimes -- at least - the work of provocateurs.
Faux "News" grabbed hold of the violence and reported that it was typical. (Fox has claimed in court that no sensible viewer takes Tucker Carlson seriously. I would extend that to the rest of the network.)
Kind of hard to hide burning buildings with the large number of cameras taking video. No commentary was needed from anyone. Even a fool can tell that people burning down buildings are not peaceful protesters.
I don't watch Fox. At best Carlson is a talking head who reads the stories he is given and suppresses those he is told to. His father worked for a govt. propaganda unit and he continues in the family trade.
IIRC it was CNN which had its reporter make that claim in front of burning buildings. Anderson Cooper Vanderbilt's first job was in the CIA, so I'm as trusting of his roll at CNN as I am of Carlson's at Fox.
In half a century of following the news I've noticed that every time I am aware of the true facts of a story the news have exaggerated or falsified the story they present. So now I no longer accept what they say unless I can verify it elsewhere.
You are correct that there were provocateur's at the violent protests. The kid arrested for throwing a pipe bomb at the federal building in Portland was filmed being given it moments before by a pair of large men in body armor. He obviously had no clue what it was, he was completely surprised and shocked by the explosion. He was arrested on felony charges. The men who gave it to him were not.
The three men shot by the kid in Kenosha were white, from out of area, with criminal records including child abuse and spousal abuse. They and others had been bussed in.
I'll leave it at that as its obvious PotomacBob only started the thread so he could argue and nitpick with replies. I don't know why he posts here. Twitter would be his natural habitat.
FWIW I enjoy your stories. Usually gentle, romantic and believable, they are underscored in my opinion.
In half a century of following the news I've noticed that every time I am aware of the true facts of a story the news have exaggerated or falsified the story they present. So now I no longer accept what they say unless I can verify it elsewhere.
In my circle of friends, both in-person and online, we discuss how news articles often bury the lede. They'll use a clickbait headline, then several paragraphs of breathless hyperbole, and somewhere deep in the article, casually mention the fact that makes the headline and breathlessness a lie.
TV news is worse - they often omit the lede completely, so determining what actually happened is impossible.
Back in the 70s I used to listen to BBC World Service, Radio Moscow, and Voice of America. The truth was usually found in a synthesis of the three into a probable retelling of events.
The three men shot by the kid in Kenosha were white, from out of area, with criminal records including child abuse and spousal abuse. They and others had been bussed in.
The kid was also bused in, from Illinois.
Wild pigs? Don't they mean feral pigs?
The two terms can (and are) used interchangeably. However, wild pigs are actually escaped domestic pigs, or the immediate descendants of those escaped pigs. Feral pigs have been on their own long enough they've lost all sense of being domestic animals.
Immediately escaped wild pigs can be recaptured. If they've been out for a couple of months, though, they're just like feral pigs at that point, are considered vermin, and are shoot on sight. Preferably with something big enough to kill them - an AR-10 works pretty good for that. Last time I went out with a buddy hunting them on his land, I generally took four shots of 5.56 mm from my AR-15 to put one down, while he could get them with one or two from his AR-10.
Depends on the size of the pig. A head shot with AP 5.56 will bring one down with one shot. My personal choice is 300 win mag. Eastern TN doesn't grow them as big as Oklahoma or Texas, but not too far south of me over the Alabama line, there was a recorded 1,050 pound feral taken. Something that size needs something in the .30 caliber range or larger to take down reasonablely.
A head shot with AP 5.56 will bring one down with one shot.
We were just using regular FMJ at between 250-300 yards. Biggest problem was the wind, which was blowing right to left, because we couldn't get totally downwind of them.
I generally took four shots of 5.56 mm from my AR-15 to put one down,
Get an AR-15 chambered for .458 SOCOM or .50 Beowulf
Wild pigs? Don't they mean feral pigs?
I have feral pigs in my novel "Death of a Hero." I use wild and feral interchangeably.
I have feral pigs in my novel "Death of a Hero." I use wild and feral interchangeably.
I got the wild/feral distinction correctly in my Great Death series, but attributed the title 'boar' the the wrong sex. I was read the riot act by a reader, and made that a vital element of the following book. Sometimes, you only learn to first revealing just who an ignoramus you really are. Otherwise, you never even encounter the people with the really useful information.
I got the wild/feral distinction correctly in my Great Death series, but attributed the title 'boar' the the wrong sex.
Boar is more complicated than that.
https://www.britannica.com/animal/boar-mammal
While it is used as the term for male domestic pigs (and a few other species) it is also properly part of the common species name for most non-domesticated swine.
Boar, also called wild boar or wild pig, any of the wild members of the pig species Sus scrofa, family Suidae. The term boar is also used to designate the male of the domestic pig, guinea pig, and various other mammals. The term wild boar, or wild pig, is sometimes used to refer to any wild member of the Sus genus.
Switch Blayde
I once knew a guy named Lindsey Powell Smith - and he confessed to having three last names. On the off chance that "Switch" might be a last name, I checked the My Heritage site. It answered: "we found 3,688,823 records for the Switch last name."
that "Switch" might be a last name
I wanted to name my son "Blayde" and call him "Switch" as a nickname. My wife said no way!
Technically, a "wild pig" is one that was always in the wild, and none of it's ancestors noticeable was domesticated.
A "feral pig" is normally a pig, boar, or pig-boar hybrid that was once domesticated, or is the offspring of another where they were once domesticated.
And never be fooled that these are your cute little pink barnyard squealers. I knew many a farmer that refused to ever raise swine. They are nasty, and one of the deadliest farm animals there are. And within 1-3 generations after going wild, they will "devolve" back into their wild cousins once again. Complete with dark bristly coat and tusks. The mean and predatory omnivores they were in the wild.
And among Pacific Islanders, humans are not called "Long Pig" for nothing (which is why I often joke "Humans: The OTHER White Meat"). These creatures are smart. As in smarter than dogs, and are actually the most intelligent animals after chimps, dolphins, and elephants.
But seeing that this is a report from Oklahoma and there are no "Wild Pigs" in that area, it is one of millions of "Feral Pigs" or their descendants that plague much of North America.
And yes, I have also written about pigs in a story in the past. Even going into breeding habits of such. Including that they have a corkscrew at the end of their penis, and literally "screw" it into the cervix of the female (their screams during mating season can be disturbing). Unlike most animals (including primates), they do not deposit their sperm into the vagina but into the womb itself PAST the cervix. And like dogs, mating can go on for a half hour or more until they yank it out. Oh, and it is prehensile, like an elephant's trunk, or the tail on some animals. Males are known to scratch themselves if they have an itch with their penis, as if it was a finger.
"Humans: The OTHER White Meat"
That's how I use the pigs in my novel. The bad guys are quite tasty.
That's how I use the pigs in my novel. The bad guys are quite tasty.
Well, for me it was a case where a gal from the big city goes to the "Country" for the first time, and she is of the generation that her knowledge of pigs was from the Paul Lynde version of "Charlotte's Web". And has to be educated on what they are really like from some "Country Kids".
However, I will admit that I have long had in the back of my mind a story that would involve cannibalism. Not my usual story at all, but it has been lurking there for years, simply because I have had a bit of fascination ever since I was a kid and saw "Soylent Green".
In fact, I need to do something about that, because I remember all the memes floating around when Back to the Future and other movies had their "future" dates come to pass, and people said that was how we should dress/talk/act. And Soylent Green was set in 2022.
So don't forget. Next year we are all supposed to check into euthanasia centers, and be turned into food.
I need to do something about that, because I remember all the memes floating around when Back to the Future and other movies had their "future" dates come to pass, and people said that was how we should dress/talk/act.
Soylent Greewich, anyone?
That's how I use the pigs in my novel. The bad guys are quite tasty.
I remember. A tad cliche, but still effective.
A tad cliche, but still effective.
Thomas Harris used it well in his 'Hannibal' novels.
AJ
Prior to Columbus there was no native swines in the Americas.
Javelinas were originally from South America and are a different species. (Family Tayassuidae)
Feral pigs aka razorbacks are descendants of domestic pigs (Sus domesticus), introduced to the Americas by the white colonists. Some escaped but most were deliberately set free for hunting.
Also introduced for hunting were Russian wild boars (Sus scrofa). Wild boars were never domesticated therefore are wild not feral. However wild boars can interbreed with domestic/feral pigs. Those crossbreeds are regarded as feral. The American feral pigs are descendants of old domestic breeds, not modern breeds.
HM.