|
Buckshot's Article
"Nobel Savage" With Keen Insight Into Conservation
|
|
Buckshot's Article
"Nobel Savage" With Keen Insight Into Conservation
|
|
"Noble Savage” with Keen Insight into Conservation
By Bruce 'Buckshot' Hemming
Hollywood and academia has for years promoted this Eden-like fantasy about pre-Columbian America. In fact, the Pollution Control Act specifically states that lands or water must be cleaned to “pre-Columbian” condition, regarding any pollution spill. The Wilderness Act and Endangered Species act are to further promote this idealistic picture of North America. But there is one problem with all of this: In this theory, man is not part of the environment. It’s as if mankind is some type of alien creature that doesn't belong on the land. Dr. L. David Mech, when talking about Yellowstone being repopulated with wolves, stated the only thing missing was “the teepees and the Sioux living among the animals".
During the wolf introduction, it was repeated ad nauseam that none of the Native Americans ever hunted the wolves, and in fact, worshipped them. Is this based on scientific fact? Of course not; it’s nothing more than a Hollywood fantasy, tricked out to fool the public. As I have mentioned in many articles, the Native Americans had different control methods for wolves. Why would Native Americans want to control wolves? Simply because wolves are natural competitors with man for his very survival. The book Wolves of North America talks about the ability of the Comanches, possibly the best horsemen of all the Native Americans, to hunt buffalo by approaching them on horseback with a long pole. Attached to the end of this pole was a metal, curved type of sickle, which was sharpened on one side. The Comanches would ride up on the left side of a buffalo. They would then reach down and hamstring the right leg of the buffalo, using the pole. This same method was also used on wolves. It’s likely the hunter would continue on to hamstring additional buffalo or wolves, returning later to finish off the ones that were hamstrung.
In his book, Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature, Dr. Charles Kay assembled several well-known scientists to discuss Native Americans, based on archeological digs. Using carbon dating, they were able to establish what the Natives ate and the changes in diet over thousands of years. In the California dig sites, they were able to see a clear downward trend in the primary animals and fish used for the survival of the people. In fact, some species, such as the ground sloth, are believed to have been hunted to extinction. What is clear is mankind has always used the available wildlife as food, based on the gain from a given hunt. But the all-too-familiar myth that the Natives always used every single part of any animal they killed appears to more based in Hollywood stories and pre-conceived ideas than actual empirical evidence. The evidence clearly shows this was not the case. On dig sites are layers of evidence covering thousands of years, which, according to scientists, not only prove the decline of certain animals based on what was being returned to the village, but also what was missing. The preferred meat was tule elk and blacktail deer. As the dig went on, less and less of the whole animal appeared. The less important parts were left at the kill site, while the more valuable meats were returned to the village. This likely was due to the fact the hunters had to venture farther and farther to find animals to hunt.
To say that Native Americans, numbering in the thousands, were not affecting the wildlife is naiveté at best. There is evidence to show that Native Americans did indeed radically impact the Eco-system. For example, maize became an important food. Most of us learned that Native Americans taught the first Pilgrims how to plant corn, using fish as fertilizer. But what was never mentioned is how they protected their crops from deer. It is interesting that primitive man was able to find a natural defense using an organic plant. Squash produces an incredibly bitter compound, cucurbiticin. This has been known to be fatally toxic to some livestock, and most herbivores stay away from such plants. The corn was planted on small mounds and the squash was planted in between the mounds with a spacing of 3 feet for the corn. But how did the natives clear land for farming? Using primitive tools, they removed small trees and brush. The larger trees were girded. Once |
large trees were dead they would burn the area. Their farming took place mostly along floodplains. How much did the Natives farm? According to British and French military intelligence, the Iroquois harvested over a million bushels of maize. The Natives built channels for water, producing as much food as possible, and had a definite impact on the environment.
What of the Natives employing hunting methods with wisdom to preserve and conserve the wildlife for maximum growth? Again, this is based more in romantic theory and the Hollywood myth of the “Noble savage.” In reality, food such as acorns, hickory nuts, and pecans needed to be protected from the animals that fed on them. We know that in the last 100 years of American game management, the system was set up to provide the maximum number of game animals. This was done using different methods, but what is consistent throughout is the protection of the spring birthing time. Deer and elk for instance, were not hunted during this time to allow for the recruitment of the young to sustain the herd. But as we will quickly learn, the Native Americans in the East did just the opposite.
The Eastern Native Americans’ hunting strategy was when hunting deer in the Fall, to target mainly the Bucks; however, in the spring, does, fawns, and gravid does were the main target. For turkey, the main focus was March through May, with some Fall hunting. To hunt squirrels, the timing was March through April. This was done to protect the important nuts such as hickory, acorns, and pecans. The mast crop was very important to the Native Americans as a food source and a single Creek household would store a hundred bushels of hickory nuts. Common sense dictated, then, to thin the animal competition for important food stock. On Page 169 of Dr. Kay’s Wilderness and Political Ecology…, "The hunting pattern was not a sustained harvest strategy, at least in the way we understand the term. Rather, it was a strategy--probably not consciously followed--that served to increase human access to plant food by actively decreasing the numbers of plant food competitors."
Clearly, this hunting strategy was not based on increasing game herds but just the opposite: targeting the animals during the birthing time to decrease their numbers. I have always thought that easy-to-identify animals, such as the males of certain species, were easiest to promote and help to bring their numbers up, while at the same time, allowing a sustainable harvest. In many species such as deer, elk, pheasants, and ducks such as the mallard, the males are easy to identify. The beauty of this is that one male is able to service several females to ensure healthy recruitment in the spring. Of course, like all things, this is not a guarantee for a healthy system. In Michigan, for example, for years only bucks were targeted. This allowed for too many does and very few bucks. In fact the whole system was off, with as many as 20 does to every buck. That is where the State of Kansas then began leading the way by targeting the does. The herd was thinned to five does per buck. Small bucks where also protected with, I believe, a 6-point or better (Eastern count). In a few years, massive bucks were found in Kansas. Man’s ability to toss out conventional wisdom and willingness to try new approaches helped produce a healthier herd. This in turn helped the farmers with fewer does eating their crops.
The book, Empire of the Summer Moon, focused more on the truth than the politically correct revisionist history. It tells the story of the Comanches. This is a fantastic book with history seen realistically. In the book the author tells how the young Comanche boys became such great shots with their bows, they were able to hit flying hummingbirds. It was not mentioned if the birds were used for anything besides target practice. It could be safe to say that the tiny hummingbird was never eaten. This book may well be the most fair ever written, depicting both sides of the hunting/ecology issue. The Comanche's were not saints. Before the settlers arrived, they were able to become horse masters of the plains. They were able to drive out the Spanish, and drove the Apaches off contested hunting grounds, as well. As we have seen throughout history, mankind shows the same weakness everywhere. Conquerors kill, driving off the other humans in an area.
What is common in today’s double-speak is that, frequently among environmentalists, you will hear condemnation of the Founding Fathers e.g., that they were slave owners. This seems to disregard everything else they accomplished. At the same time, you will hear praise for the Native Americans who lived peacefully upon the land. This could not be more far-fetched than if one were to say that UFO's brought the first Europeans to the New World. The tribes were in constant competition for land. As Lewis and Clark noted, between "warring tribes" were buffer zones that neither tribe had the resources to control. In these buffer zones, game was plentiful. But nearing villages, game again became scarce. This is simple logic: thousands of people require a lot of food, and their main source of protein was game animals. But it also clearly points out there was no deliberate conservation in place to maximize game herds.
Native Americans were also slave owners, but they didn’t own African Americans. Instead, they captured females. In Empire of the Rising Moon you will learn that the Comanche were very brutal in the capture of whites. The men were tortured brutally and the women were gang-raped, then made into slaves. The primary job of slave women was tanning buffalo hides. If the quota of tanned buffalo hides was not met the slave would get a beating. The Apache women were also taken as slaves. I do not bring this point up to excuse or dismiss what the evil whites did to the Native Americans, but to prove the point that both sides had faults.
Let us consider, then, that if we were to restore wilderness back to pre- Columbian status, would we want warring tribes in competition for food, taking slaves, gang-raping women, and torturing men? I can hear the righteous indignation welling up in the environmentalists’ minds. How dare he say these things? I am sure this will also be taken out of context. No, I am not suggesting we should do these things. But how can one say, let’s restore the wilderness to Pre-Columbian status, and exclude modern humans from the land?
To exclude man from the land is not restoring, but destroying, the land. The land should be used as natural food production, such as in native wild plants like acorn and hickory, thus allowing a scientific balance to game management. This would then allow maximum human consumption. This would be based on scientific game management plans. These would allow for a healthy control of the animals to keep the predators in balance with the carrying capacity of the land. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding reality when it comes to predator management. When some people see the words, “threatened” or “endangered”, relative to animals, many of them automatically believe any propaganda. This is not based on reality, but rather the Disney-like fantasy of saving them “for the children.” It is time for Americans to grow up. We need to stop listening to the shrill voices that scream louder and louder of “Eco-Armageddon”, followed by, “send us more money!” We must awaken to the fact that man is as much a part of nature as the animals.
It is time we take a grown-up stance. There needs to be sustainable harvesting of our National forests, with reasonable management of grizzly bears and wolves. Game management programs that increase the available protein in deer and elk should be put in place, and promoted. Excluding the harvesting of timber causes great overgrowth of runt forest, with 200 small junk trees per acre, that soon die and become ripe for forest fires. We must find a sustainable balance where both man and nature thrive.
Removing mankind from his natural role of being part of nature to this perverted version of “no man allowed” is not based on science, but on a fantasy-land that has never existed, in pre-Columbian history, or elsewhere.
Copyright © 2009-2011 to present all rights reserved worldwide. No part of this web site can be copied or reproduced by any means without written permission from the owner (Bruce Hemming.)
