It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indians hunted carelessly, study says

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Shazam, pieman, and agent t, I have made quite different conclusions from my study.

I don't belive I did. I never expressed the thought that pre-agricultural man was locked in a constant struggle for survival. I simply expressed the truth that many predators other than man kill for pleasure. I also reasoned that animals are more in touch with nature than men at any stage of our development. To me it simply seems illogical to assume that man would be any less wasteful than animals.


As for other animals killing wastefully, or for sport, with the rare exception, such as the orca, I have not seen that.

Ask and ye shall recieve.
www.mtmultipleuse.org...
In addition I have seen reports of lions, hyenas, bears and most other apex predators engaging in the same types of activities. Why when other predaots act in a wasteful manner should we be expected to be any different?




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShazamsChampion
I never expressed the thought that pre-agricultural man was locked in a constant struggle for survival. I simply expressed the truth that many predators other than man kill for pleasure. I also reasoned that animals are more in touch with nature than men at any stage of our development. To me it simply seems illogical to assume that man would be any less wasteful than animals.
Ask and ye shall recieve.
www.mtmultipleuse.org...
In addition I have seen reports of lions, hyenas, bears and most other apex predators engaging in the same types of activities. Why when other predaots act in a wasteful manner should we be expected to be any different?

I think it was someone else who mentioned the survival point. I saved your link and briefly looked it over. I found a few points on there that I have so far seen to be wrong. On the topic of wolves, I have seen a wolf couple up close in the wild myself, and was happy to see them bound off when they realized we were there. I believe you that many apex predators occassionally kill needlessly. I just disagree that it is common. In those pictures from Idaho, I noticed that it was winter, and wonder if the wolves may have left their kills to freeze and thereby create a food store for the future. If they rotted, then if that was their plan, it failed. I am against wolf kills, and don't view them at all the way the people at that site do. My friend, a Sioux woman, who is a wolf fan, has petted a wild wolf. It did not eat her, and she was not afraid of it at all. I was in my encounter, but was never even close to being in danger. They fled the moment they saw us.
Whether or not they are better or worse stewards of the herds of ungulates in their domain is debatable. So far, I feel that they are better. They do mostly take out the infirm, old, sick, weak, and slow members, thereby strengthening the herds gene pool. The trophy hunter kills the cream of the crop, the biggest most impressive animals, weakening the gene pool. That alone is reason enough for me to feel as I do. If I find out otherwise, I don't mind changing my mind. Alaska kills wolves to save the caribou.... so hunter-tourists can kill them instead. They don't proclaim that second part of the equation much though, but the wolf kill plan does bring in big tourist dollars.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShazamsChampion
In addition I have seen reports of lions, hyenas, bears and most other apex predators engaging in the same types of activities. Why when other predaots act in a wasteful manner should we be expected to be any different?


Because we are not stupid four legged beast who are ignorant of cause and effect.
We are well aware of the repercussions of our actions, therefore we should not encourage
or condone actions that lead to the destruction of our own environment.

But we do anyway, so we are stupid two legged beasts, and we should have
open hunting season on ourselves, and follow in the manner of animals
by abolishing all laws. What use do animals have for laws?
Does a deer see a traffic light and wait for it to be green?
Does a dog worry about getting arrested for incest?
Of course not!
If we are going to be animals lets stop pretending to be something better and get it all over with.



[edit on 1-7-2006 by Legalizer]



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
We can choose, aware of what our choice will mean. Knowing better, yet still acting otherwise is far different than acting in ignorance. If Shazamschampion would clarify what he meant by his query of why shouldn't we, I'd appreciate that.
As for open season, you didn't hear? It is. Has been for millenia now. Did you know ostriches kill more people each year than sharks do, or that snakes kill 100 000 people annually, making them the second deadliest animal to people on earth. They are very far behind number one, an animal so bloodthirsty it kills over a million people a year. Of course, that animal is humans.
The indians saved the first pilgrims lives when they were starving, an act of generosity we memorialize with Thanksgiving. When I think about how the kind and unconditional gift of life was later repaid to the indians over all, I am at a loss for words. Indians may have hunted carelessly, but the newcomers hunted with more of a gleeful total disregard for life, rather than without care.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
Look at contemporary reservation and tribal lands. Despite being given some of the most pristine land in the U.S. reservation lands are commonly more exploited and trashed than adjacent lands in the private and public sector. Tribal recreation areas tend to have more litter and more vandalized than nearby Forest Service, BLM, or NPS recreation areas utilized primarily by whites.


An unfair point. The wreck of American Indian culture is due to our influence (200 yrs of policy, land theft, the methodical destruction of their native culture, alcohol, smallpox etc...)

It is important to remember that
1. American Indian culture was not perfect.
2. We stole their land and almost exterminated them.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla

An unfair point. The wreck of American Indian culture is due to our influence (200 yrs of policy, land theft, the methodical destruction of their native culture, alcohol, smallpox etc...)

It is important to remember that
1. American Indian culture was not perfect.
2. We stole their land and almost exterminated them.


So trashing and littering is someone else's fault?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
We can choose, aware of what our choice will mean. Knowing better, yet still acting otherwise is far different than acting in ignorance. If Shazamschampion would clarify what he meant by his query of why shouldn't we, I'd appreciate that.
As for open season, you didn't hear? It is. Has been for millenia now. Did you know ostriches kill more people each year than sharks do, or that snakes kill 100 000 people annually, making them the second deadliest animal to people on earth. They are very far behind number one, an animal so bloodthirsty it kills over a million people a year. Of course, that animal is humans.
The indians saved the first pilgrims lives when they were starving, an act of generosity we memorialize with Thanksgiving. When I think about how the kind and unconditional gift of life was later repaid to the indians over all, I am at a loss for words. Indians may have hunted carelessly, but the newcomers hunted with more of a gleeful total disregard for life, rather than without care.


What I meant was given that Native American culture didn't have either the science or technology to know what tyhier impact on the environment was, given that thier level of sophistication wasn't enough to allow them to see the secondary effects thier actions were having, and the fact that animals themselves act in a wasteful; manner, why would we logically afford them some mystical or spirtual connection that would limit thier actions when no other predator seems to exhibit any evidence of such a connection?
The idea that Animals live in harmony with nature, or that some groupings of men do is pure myth. The only reason we buy into this bunk is that our civilisation has insulated us from nature enough that we don't know any better. There is nothing benovalent about the natural world, and those who think so do so due to either ignorance or a quasi religous belief.
Animals do not insticntivly live in harmony with nature, if this were so, prey species would not need preadotrs to keep thier numbers down. Have you ever seen what happens to a Deer population when all predators are removed (both natural and human hunting) or tyhe ecosystem?
Without predation thier population expands untill they strip the landscape bare of all vegetation, at which point the lack of food causes widespread starvation, reducing the population to a fraction of what it was before predation was removed. This cycle, will repeat, the population crashing, slowly building up to beyond sustainable levels, and then crashing again, untill predation is reintroduced. Where is the mythical "connection to nature" to which many here have claimed?
Deer, elk, caribou, and other species are not in "harmony" with nature, they are kept in harmony with nature due to other species interevntion. Like wise the wolf population is controlled both by its own range (through intraspecies competition) and through the availabillity of prey. Animals seem to be "in harmony" with nature (as the Matix famously put it "achiving a natural balance eith thier ecosystem) because other animals keep them in check. Wheras man "expands untill he has exhausted an areas resources" simply because our intellect has allowed us to devise strategies whic preclude other species from limiting our growth. Domestication has allowed us to ensure a steady supply of easy prey as well as animals which make our second great strategy, agriculture, more effecient. Tecnology allows us to use those animals we have domesticated to create artificial coverings which have allowed us to increase our species habitible range, and technology has allowed us to further isolate our prospects from survival from natural conditions.
However to asusme that every other species would not do the same if they had the abillity is illogical.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
If people thought critically once in a whaile as opposed to buying into psuedo religous BS about nature, they would be thankful we aren't more "in touch with nature"



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

I think it was someone else who mentioned the survival point. I saved your link and briefly looked it over. I found a few points on there that I have so far seen to be wrong. On the topic of wolves, I have seen a wolf couple up close in the wild myself, and was happy to see them bound off when they realized we were there. I believe you that many apex predators occassionally kill needlessly. I just disagree that it is common. In those pictures from Idaho, I noticed that it was winter, and wonder if the wolves may have left their kills to freeze and thereby create a food store for the future. If they rotted, then if that was their plan, it failed. I am against wolf kills, and don't view them at all the way the people at that site do. My friend, a Sioux woman, who is a wolf fan, has petted a wild wolf. It did not eat her, and she was not afraid of it at all. I was in my encounter, but was never even close to being in danger. They fled the moment they saw us.

Nor do I, but the fact that I disagree with thier position doesn't make the information any less accurate. In point of fact I support the Wolf reintroduction project financially.
However that doesn't mean I am going to buy into some mystical claptrap about wolves being "gentle earth spirits" who "never waste" and are "naturaly at equllibrium with thier environment" either.


Whether or not they are better or worse stewards of the herds of ungulates in their domain is debatable. So far, I feel that they are better. They do mostly take out the infirm, old, sick, weak, and slow members, thereby strengthening the herds gene pool. The trophy hunter kills the cream of the crop, the biggest most impressive animals, weakening the gene pool. That alone is reason enough for me to feel as I do. If I find out otherwise, I don't mind changing my mind. Alaska kills wolves to save the caribou.... so hunter-tourists can kill them instead. They don't proclaim that second part of the equation much though, but the wolf kill plan does bring in big tourist dollars.

They have no choice, even a full wolf pack is no match for a adult deer in good health, much less a caribou or elk, as it is most predators have a 50% failure rate when hunting.
They have to go after the weak, the sick, the eld, or the young, as they arer simply no match for full grown adults in good health. However I see no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't prey upon healthy adults if they had the capabillity.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by ShazamsChampion]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShazamsChampionIn point of fact I support the Wolf reintroduction project financially.
However that doesn't mean I am going to buy into some mystical claptrap about wolves being "gentle earth spirits" who "never waste" and are "naturaly at equllibrium with thier environment" either.
They have no choice, even a full wolf pack is no match for a adult deer in good health, much less a caribou or elk, as it is most predators have a 50% failure rate when hunting.
They have to go after the weak, the sick, the eld, or the young, as they arer simply no match for full grown adults in good health. However I see no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't prey upon healthy adults if they had the capabillity.
[edit on 4-7-2006 by ShazamsChampion]

I am not one to blindly accept the abundant, fervent, esoteric proclamations that attach some kind of mystical, new age quality to nature. Nature doesn't need selling, just like spiritual beliefs need no defending. If there is some kind of a God, it wouldn't need defending or protecting by its followers, imo. I subscribe, mostly, to the Darwinian model of species natural selection. An equilibrium is always being approached, through natural means, but it is never attained. Too many elk lead to increased wolf numbers, which leads to decreased elk numbers, which leads to decreased wolf numbers. We agree that the predators, realistically, most often target the easier prey, thereby culling the genetically less robust members of the herd. This, over time, strengthens the herd. Whether they would eat the best elk, if able, is irrelevent, imo. They probably would, I would guess. But they can't, so they don't, therefore for now only the trophy hunters are taking out the bigger, stronger elk, caribou, etc. I look upon the wilds with great awe, wonder, and respect, but see no need to personify it.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Put simply.

Nature has won numerous times against catastrophic/global population destroying Meteor impacts.

It has continued to replenish the earth with new species everytime adverse conditions are set upon it..

Even when an impact was so large it caused an explosion that send out millions of tons of dirt and ash high into orbit which formed the moon

The earth will survive/reform everytime,short of an event such as obliteration from a supernova or imact with a black hole

Man will not.. END OF PROBLEM

It will simply take the pieces, learn from it,s mistakes and try again



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShazamsChampionThe idea that Animals live in harmony with nature, or that some groupings of men do is pure myth. The only reason we buy into this bunk is that our civilisation has insulated us from nature enough that we don't know any better. There is nothing benovalent about the natural world, and those who think so do so due to either ignorance or a quasi religous belief.
Animals do not insticntivly live in harmony with nature, if this were so, prey species would not need preadotrs to keep thier numbers down. Have you ever seen what happens to a Deer population when all predators are removed (both natural and human hunting) or tyhe ecosystem?
Without predation thier population expands untill they strip the landscape bare of all vegetation, at which point the lack of food causes widespread starvation, reducing the population to a fraction of what it was before predation was removed. This cycle, will repeat, the population crashing, slowly building up to beyond sustainable levels, and then crashing again, untill predation is reintroduced. Where is the mythical "connection to nature" to which many here have claimed?
Deer, elk, caribou, and other species are not in "harmony" with nature, they are kept in harmony with nature due to other species interevntion. Like wise the wolf population is controlled both by its own range (through intraspecies competition) and through the availabillity of prey. Animals seem to be "in harmony" with nature (as the Matix famously put it "achiving a natural balance eith thier ecosystem) because other animals keep them in check. Wheras man "expands untill he has exhausted an areas resources" simply because our intellect has allowed us to devise strategies whic preclude other species from limiting our growth. Domestication has allowed us to ensure a steady supply of easy prey as well as animals which make our second great strategy, agriculture, more effecient. Tecnology allows us to use those animals we have domesticated to create artificial coverings which have allowed us to increase our species habitible range, and technology has allowed us to further isolate our prospects from survival from natural conditions.
However to asusme that every other species would not do the same if they had the abillity is illogical.

Excellent points, all. I only add the 'climax ecosystem' idea, which is the state an area can attain wherein it does not change significantly thereafter. Here, in the Pacific NW, it is a Cedar forest, which is the end result of about 10 millenia of evolving through a number of different systems first. The climax eco-state is when the predators, fauna, climate, and prey all live in a virtually static, symbiotic existance. This continues till some new variable, ie. man, arrives. In the case of this area, the Native inhabitants consciously, and purposely tried to live in a manner that would not upset this system. It was not something they did unawares. They felt it was critical to their future to preserve their home. Sometimes they were successful, such as here, where this strategy worked as it was meant to for over 7 000 years, likely much more. The observable impact on this system, which 200 years of 'civilized' controlling, domestication, dominion, and harvesting has had is hard to quantify as being an improvement, imo. Sure, even modern day Natives generally scoff at the prospect of losing comforts like indoor plumbing, instant meals, and sports cars, but it is hard to argue which system has shown itself to be more sustainable, or said another way, 'more harmonious'.



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
WOW that is sick propaganda about the Indians who lived with nature and cared for the land. I guess the agenda is to destroy nature with genetic engineering, all these animal practices that destroy our environment. Amazing people have the gull to write such negative rubbish about Indians. They destroyed their land and culture.. attacked their spirituality and still today are attacking the Indians culture.. I guess their natural way of things and their spiritual nature make them a threat...

Video showing what conventional modern farmers do.. SICK!!!

www.youtube.com...




www.pbs.org...

By the middle of the 19th century, even train passengers were shooting bison for sport. "Buffalo" Bill Cody, who was hired to kill bison, slaughtered more than 4,000 bison in two years. Bison were a centerpiece of his Wild West Show, which was very successful both in the United States and in Europe, distilling the excitement of the West to those who had little contact with it.

To make matters worse for wild buffalo, some U.S. government officials actively destroyed bison to defeat their Native American enemies who resisted the takeover of their lands by white settlers. American military commanders ordered troops to kill buffalo to deny Native Americans an important source of food.



[edit on 27-7-2006 by PowerToThePeople]



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Think: If I enjoy my way of life, and see it being endangered by a new group of people moving in on my territory, I would become much more conservative with my lifestyle, while still enjoying the good life I love.

I personally believe it was the same for many NAs. Others destroyed their way of life, so they became interested in preserving it. They are still fighting to preserve it.


The only times I've seen/read about Indians killing conservatively was among the Eskimos and the large culture of Cannibals that were in the NE. Man, they had some 50 seperate people's bones scattered everywhere, with all the bones cracked for the marrow....and I think some of the skulls had burn marks on them, to cook the brain.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join