From the estimated number of bison west of the Mississippi River, the number of professional bison hunters (hide, meat, and both), the number of homesteading families that killed bison for food, etc., I find it not physically possible for the vast number of bison - including bison herd's annual birth rate - to have been nearly exterminated within 12 years. Do the math, and you will reach the same conclusion.

Nevertheless, near extermination is a fact. Concomitant with this catastrophe was the rise of commercial cattle raising. In the past I have wondered about any correlation between these events occurring in the same area. But there was no way to determine whether cattle raising along with diseases of cattle, not fatal to them, were the cause of bison herds' rapid die-off.

Since extinct plant and animal life forms remnants can now be analyzed for about anything imaginable - 1918's Spanish Influenza has been genetically deciphered from disinterred human remains - has anyone who could do such analysis considered doing it with bones or skulls of bison from perhaps the late 1870s?

Its really not that hard to consider when a hide was worth $3.00 and the tongue anywhere from a quarter up to a dollar. With a bison worth up to $4.00 it became quite an attractive profession, especially considering the average laborer was only making 10.00 a week. The only limitation was how fast you shoot, skin, pack and repeat. Four bison shot a day would put you past 1,000 a year. At that pace, 1,000 hunters could kill over a million a year.

Just read an excellent book on this very subject. Market hunting was the reason. This book has the statistics and documents to show how many were killed. Nearly all.....

I believe the near extermination of the bison was a "perfect storm" situation.

Bison robes were always valuable but the hide was practically worthless for leather. Bison were only taken for their robes during the fall and winter when the fur was prime but after a viable tanning process was developed in 1870 there was an insatiable year-round market for the hides.

(Have you ever seen a picture of an old-time mill, factory or machine shop? The equipment was driven by a steam engine that powered a line shaft running the length of the shop. Every machine in the factory was driven by the line shaft via a big leather belt and bison hide turned out to be perfect for the purpose.)

There was an unlimited market for hides and they brought the equivalent of about $50 each in today's money. The country was still in a post-war depression and there were thousands of young men who faced the easy choice of becoming a professional hunter or being a farmer or laborer in a filthy, overcrowded city - if they could get a job at all. Big bore, breech-loading cartridge rifles were introduced. The newly-built railroads were there to bring in the hunters and take the hides to market. It all happened very quickly.

The actual numbers are lost to history. The bison population is estimated to have been between 10 million and 60 million and there were probably a total of about 5000 professional hunters afield back in the day. It was a gold rush sort of mentality. A handful of the hunters killed upwards of 30,000 bison each during their careers but most shot far fewer before they had their fill of adventure, went broke or got killed in one of 100 ways.

Think of how many millions of deer and other big game animals are killed every year these days. The numbers suggest that the bison may have been able to prevail against all of the pressure but there was one thing that probably pushed them over the edge and that was "climate change." It has been speculated that a prolonged drought started in the late 1860's. Ticks, brought in along with the newly introduced cattle, thrived and spread brucellosis and a multitude of other diseases in the bison herds.

It all came together around 1870.

I doubt that there will be much more research in this subject because it would destroy the "evil - white - man - destroyed - the - bison - to - subjugate - the - noble - red - man" narrative.

As you can probably tell, I'm particularly interested in this period of history.

Consider the fate of the Passenger Pigeon for a comparison.

https://www.damninteresting.co...e-passenger-pigeons/

Grizz

Grizz, if you told them what would happen to the passenger pigeon at the time they would seriously consider you insane.
But there were many things that would disappear from man's greed.

Bison are very subsepable to disease; back then and to this day. One
of the few wild, unfenced plains herds happens to spend a lot of time on and around my place. They're
Known as the Sturgeon River herd. In 2008 half of them died of anthrax. Frigging half. If you can lose half of something in the modern era with people watching, how
Many died back in the day with nobody to see? Throw some tuberculosis in, like the Wood Buffalo park herd. How do you donlose there? Brucellosis will take
one calf out of every infected cows reproductive lifetime. Dang, the bulls naturally aren't having calves, calves aren't having calves, the calves that were never born certainly aren't having calves and all
the cows lost one. It's starting to suck being a buffalo, considering the other cattle diseases they had; and we know they had because they still have them. About then, and as if they didn't have enough problems people started showing up and shooting them. That never did any good.

Take a look at the decade of the Bison die off, and consider the timing of the rinderpest epidemic in Africa that killed just about everything there.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
Bison are very subsepable to disease; back then and to this day. One
of the few wild, unfenced plains herds happens to spend a lot of time on and around my place. They're
Known as the Sturgeon River herd. In 2008 half of them died of anthrax. Frigging half. If you can lose half of something in the modern era with people watching, how
Many died back in the day with nobody to see? Throw some tuberculosis in, like the Wood Buffalo park herd. How do you donlose there? Brucellosis will take
one calf out of every infected cows reproductive lifetime. Dang, the bulls naturally aren't having calves, calves aren't having calves, the calves that were never born certainly aren't having calves and all
the cows lost one. It's starting to suck being a buffalo, considering the other cattle diseases they had; and we know they had because they still have them. About then, and as if they didn't have enough problems people started showing up and shooting them. That never did any good.

Take a look at the decade of the Bison die off, and consider the timing of the rinderpest epidemic in Africa that killed just about everything there.

Government was going to destroy the Wood Buffalo Park herd at one time because of Brucellosis, to replacethem with healthy animals. Public pressure nixed that and the bison have been carrying on. No big deal cause they're an isolated population in northern Alberta. They do wander out of the park and end up being shot. Testing is advisable, before consumption.

Grizz

Another aspect was that Indians were still very active during much of that time frame and one Indian village can use up a lot of buffalo. Many factors contributed to bring about the reduction of their numbers, there was no one specific cause.

It has actually been scientifically proven that hunter's only accounted for killing 10-25% at most. Tuberculosis and brucellosis from European import cattle did the major damage.

For more info...seach Dr. Jim Derr's work...professor at TAMU.

I have been working with and researching buffalo for about 35 years now Lane, and while disease might have killed off some animals, most folks that have really researched buffalo credit humans as being the major factor in the species decline.

From what I have read over the years from several different sources/researchers, the concept concerning disease being the major factor came about from folks not wanting to grasp the idea that humans could create biological disaster on that scale.

Buffalo east of the Mississippi River were exterminated by 1832. Did disease kill off a certain percentage of animals, yes. Did a percentage of animals die from other natural causes, yes.

Look at the time frame specified in the title but add 6 years to it, 1888 is the date many folks use as being the end of the slaughter, also the start date can be moved back to 1866 or so, right after the Civil War was over.

Both whites and indians shot them for food and hides, and as soon as the railroads spanned the continent it opened up the hunting grounds to more people, and I have not found any accurate numbers as too how many hide hunting outfits were active during that time period, plus the indians were still hunting for food, but they also hunted for hides for their own use and to sell/trade to whites.

Also kick in the fact that there was no actual idea of total numbers of buffalo at the beginning of that time frame, lots of folks, military men/naturalists/hunters/explorers made estimates, but no one ever actually counted all of the buffalo.

Estimates I have seen ranged up to possibly 60 million, when Columbus came to the New World, but that was close to 400 years before the time frame listed in the title.

Sorry for being so long winded, but by the time frame listed started there may have been at most 20 million animals on the plains, and there are no accurate numbers as to how many animals were being killed by all vectors annually during that time frame.

quote:

It has actually been scientifically proven that hunter's only accounted for killing 10-25% at most.

That actually means nothing at all....


.

quote:

That actually means nothing at all...

That is one way of puttying it!

How can something be Scientifically proven when reality is there are few if any actual/authenticated records from that time period that have an actual accounting as to how many buffalo there actually were in America during any given time frame.

There are some old shipping records concerning hides/tongues/bones, but as far as actual/factual numbers of the total population of buffalo in America.

Sorry J, but I have been reading/studying/researching buffalo and the history of the animals for almost 40 years now and the destruction of the buffalo by humans is fact.

Yes scientists have theorized that other factors had a greater effect on the numbers than humans, but they had/have no factual evidence to prove anything.

Practically ALL information concerning buffalo and their population size before and during that time frame and earlier is/was pure speculation/guesses.

There was no one out there following the herds around taking a census.

Randall,
You need to read Dr. Derr's research...pretty cut and dry. The buffalo died off from tuberculosis (mainly) and helped along by brucellosis. Hunters killed about 10-25% of the initial population but this did account for most of the tail-end. By the time the "buffalo hunters" even started...the herds had already died off to about 10-25% of original numbers.

Dr. Derr mapped the bison genome and proved his numbers by working backwards through bison DNA. They calculated the historic population through DNA calculations and then using historical records calculated the maximum amount of powder and shot that could have even possibly been used to kill buffalo.

With very liberal figures...25% of the original herd was all that could have been killed by hunters but more realistically 10%.

The DNA also recorded the real story of their demise as well...TB and to a lesser extent brucella.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Randall,
You need to read Dr. Derr's research...pretty cut and dry. The buffalo died off from tuberculosis (mainly) and helped along by brucellosis. Hunters killed about 10-25% of the initial population but this did account for most of the tail-end. By the time the "buffalo hunters" even started...the herds had already died off to about 10-25% of original numbers.

Dr. Derr mapped the bison genome and proved his numbers by working backwards through bison DNA. They calculated the historic population through DNA calculations and then using historical records calculated the maximum amount of powder and shot that could have even possibly been used to kill buffalo.

With very liberal figures...25% of the original herd was all that could have been killed by hunters but more realistically 10%.

The DNA also recorded the real story of their demise as well...TB and to a lesser extent brucella.

Apparently, the analysis I mentioned in my final paragraph of the original post has been done by Dr. Derr?

He actually did it by analyzing the DNA from thousands of live bison from Ted Turner's herd and the herd of Wood bison in Canada.

I will try to lay my hands on his work, but I have my doubts about its veracity.

I am sure that diseases did kill of a certain percentage of buffalo, but I believe his estimate on the numbers killed by hunters is too low.

Buffalo can and do get brucellosis, but quite often they are carriers of the disease, that has always been one of the main fears concerning buffalo migrating out of Yellowstone in winter and on to private land, the possible infection of domestic beef herds.

To put this in more reasonable/understandable terms, just as you have your doubts concerning Global Warming, something many scientists support and claim to be able to prove, I have my doubts on this subject simply because of the lack of verifiable proof concerning the actual numbers of buffalo on the Nor, at any point in history on the North America continent.

I will do my best to get ahold of a copy of his findings and read them, because it will be interesting to find out where he obtained his data.

But just like you and everyone else that doubts the Global Warming concept, and that includes myself, but looking back at all the books and articles I have read over the past almost 40 years, I reserve the right to exam the information and see what his data was, its sources and if any of his findings are based on speculations on his part concerning the data/the sources of that data and his interpretation of that data.

To the best of my memory, out of all the material I have read, I do not remember any references to or the mention of large unexplainable die offs of large numbers of buffalo, and that is something that both Indians and White's alike would have recorded in their histories.

Addendum: I had not read your other comment concerning his research using DNA from live buffalo, but that in and of itself throws up a Red Flag of sorts, as buffalo today in way too many cases carry varying amounts of cattle DNA. Goodnight and lots of other folks, that worked at saving the remaining buffalo in North America, which has been guesstimated at a low of 650 animals or so to a high end guess of 1000 to 1500, and in way too many cases those animals ran with domestic cattle, beef and dairy.

I know that when TP&W started putting together the Buffalo Herd at Caprock Canyons, they went to the time/effort and expense to have every animal brought into the herd DNA tested to make sure none of those animals carried any cattle genetics. The Fort Worth Nature Center did the same thing when their facilities expanded and they could build up a little larger herd than they originally had.

Lane can you provide me with anymore information on the Dr. Derr that did the research, such as his first name.

I have had no luck so far on Google finding anything.

Regina Saskatchewan, was originally named Pile of Bones because of the accumulated stocks of bison bones for shipping east, to be processed for fertilizer.

https://southcarolina1670.word...-provincial-capital/


Grizz

Buffalo are really unique animals in many aspects.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
He actually did it by analyzing the DNA from thousands of live bison from Ted Turner's herd and the herd of Wood bison in Canada.

http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/.../natcul/natcul2.aspx


Grizz

I wish Lane would supply me with the information on how to obtain Dr. Derr's papers on his findings.

In 2000, when Lora and I went to Alberta so I could fly up to Cambridge Bay for my Musk Ox hunt, when we reached Edmonton, we had extra days to do some sight seeing. One of the places we visited was Elk Island National Park.

One of the interesting aspects of the park is that they worked really hard at putting together a herd of pure Wood Buffalo. One of the problems they ran into was obtaining pure strain Wood Buffalo, and not crosses between Wood buffalo and Plains buffalo and Domestic Cattle.

This has been a recurring issue for many years with the various people/governments and institutions working with buffalo.

The latest from Parks Canada.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3230...banff-national-park/

These are from Elk Island. 6 million bucks and pretty controversial.

Grizz

Since the end of the great herds roaming the Plains, all efforts to save buffalo have been surrounded with controversy and always will be, especially those that are basically "Publicly" owned.

Those animals on or moved to National/Federal lands.

I have been working with buffalo for about 30 years now, the man I work for bought a small herd in 2011, one bull and 13 cows and now we are up to 50+ animals. Three new cows were bought about 18 months or so ago, but the rest of the herd increase has been thru births among our adult animals.

Last year we started getting calves from cows that were born on the property in 2012 and 2013.

I do not refer to them as bison, having worked at a public zoo, from my interaction with the visitors, fully 90% of them, American and Foreign, called them buffalo. Yes, technically/scientifically they are Bison, but the name Buffalo first appeared in print in 1754, and that is the term the majority of people use.

Besides, it is NOT Bison New York, Bison Bill Cody, Bison Gap Texas or a lot of other places/businesses/sports teams that are named Bison.

While searching or waiting to get access to the research Lane mentioned, one of the aspects that I base my differing opinion concerning what caused the decline of the animals in such numbers lies within the concept of checking living animals today i9s due to the efforts people have had to go to, to obtain pure buffalo genetics, because I do not sure that anyone that has been able to unravel the genetic code of buffalo had access to any specimens from the time frame when the numbers were beginning to decline.

When did scientists really gain the ability to determine the genetic code of any species?

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:
Regina Saskatchewan, was originally named Pile of Bones because of the accumulated stocks of bison bones for shipping east, to be processed for fertilizer.

https://southcarolina1670.word...-provincial-capital/


Grizz

That's a common mistake, common enough that it has been taught in school.

In actual fact the name came from the Cree, and long pre-dates Regina or any white man made bone shipping piles. It translates to "place where bones are piled" from the banks of Wascana Creek being strewn with bones. Story is, the Indians had some
art-ful piles.

Pile of Bones - Place where bones are piled??????

What REAL difference is there????????

Quite a difference because they talking about different things.
The town got its name from the area, which had that name for perhaps centuries before there was a town there.

Either way, it translates to the same thing, no matter HOW the bones got there.

Interesting information.

Don't get me wrong, history does matter, to those interested in it.

To the average person it won't matter, that is why so many historical facts get muddled over the years.

Many folks however would never really pay any attention.

However as neat and interesting as that information is, it is really just an aside from the subject of the OP.

Just like the time parameters listed in the OP, 1870 - 1882. Where did that time frame come from?

Problems I find with those parameters:

A. Accurate population numbers. There are NONE concerning the exact or even approximate numbers of buffalo on the plains of North America, more specifically America during that time frame.

B. The hunting did not become really unprofitable until about 1888, when the big herds had actually ceased to exist, 6 years after the time frame specified in the OP.

C. There are NO accurate/exact numbers of buffalo killed and left laying by sportsmen from the East shooting from trains, no accurate/exact numbers of buffalo killed and left laying by settlers that had been given ammunition by the U.S. Military, after the Civil War, before and during the Indian Wars, in an attempt, although not officially recognised/sanctioned, Publicly, by the PTB's in Washington, in an effort overt or covert to starve the Plains Indians into submission.

The name, the bone beds, the ceremonial Cree site predate the town.

What's the difference? They also predate the settlers, the explorers, the railroad and the buffalo hunters.

Like any other historical event/location etc., they all hold different levels of importance to different individuals.

Take this discussion, how many people on the site are ACTUALLY interested enough to participate?

Contrary to what you may believe, history of America/North America is important to me, if it wasn't I would not get so involved in discussions such as this.

Remembering/learning about the ACTUAL history of an event or location is important, and to many people, in fact all TOO Many people in this day in time will not/do not care whether the bones were piled in that location by the river or stream flooding or after thawing in the Spring, or they were p-laced there by Indians of Whites for whatever reason, all they will remember is that they passed thru or by a location named Pile Of Bones, many or most will not have taken time to stop and read that graphic you posted.

I and my wife stop and look at such stuff as part of our life's goal of continuing education about the world we live in and pass thru, we enjoy finding out the history of such places.

Lead poisoning.

I believe that was a major cause, but maybe we will find out different.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Like any other historical event/location etc., they all hold different levels of importance to different individuals.

Take this discussion, how many people on the site are ACTUALLY interested enough to participate?

Contrary to what you may believe, history of America/North America is important to me, if it wasn't I would not get so involved in discussions such as this.

Remembering/learning about the ACTUAL history of an event or location is important, and to many people, in fact all TOO Many people in this day in time will not/do not care whether the bones were piled in that location by the river or stream flooding or after thawing in the Spring, or they were p-laced there by Indians of Whites for whatever reason, all they will remember is that they passed thru or by a location named Pile Of Bones, many or most will not have taken time to stop and read that graphic you posted.

I and my wife stop and look at such stuff as part of our life's goal of continuing education about the world we live in and pass thru, we enjoy finding out the history of such places.

My point in bringing up the name, and the misconception as to its origin is partly because it's local history. I hate to see bad info repeated until it becomes the truth.

There is another aspect though. When the mistaken origin is offered up as proof the hide hunters wiped out the bison herds it doesn't hurt to point out that the name comes before the hide hunters and existed while the buffalo were doing just fine. To build on that a bit, we don't know what killed the bison that supplied the bones that gave the place it's name in the first place. We don't know, nobody does. The name should be a reminder that we don't know.

I have not received the information Dr. Easter was citing, but from the research I have been doing for close to 40 years, it is pretty clear that the reduction in buffalo numbers was directly caused by humans.

The problem I am beginning to see, is that humans today, for some reason do not want to acknowledge that possibility.

It is just like the belief by some that humans did not play a significant role in the extinction of the large herbivores, Mammoths and such, before and during the Ice Age.

What is more interesting is that modern day hunters seem to want to refuse that possibility.

I always like to quote General Philip Sheridan at times like these.

quote:

"Let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffalo is exterminated, as it is the only way to bring lasting peace and allow civilization to advance."- General Philip Sheridan

There is a good book about Bullao hunting called "Getting a Stand" by Miles Gilbert/ Bill Leftwich.

There are several good books about the Buffalo in North America, some of a scientific/naturalist bent and some the recollections of hunters and military personnel.

I have read more than one account, that some historians dispute, concerning the idea that during the period of the Indian Wars, post commanders would give civilians ammunition if they would use it to kill buffalo simply to starve the Indians into submission. No actual records were kept that would prove or disprove such claims, but, rumors sometime or quite to have an element of truth in them.

I am hoping Lane can help me obtain the materials he mentioned.

I've read some accounts of civilians and (especially) buffalo hunters being given ammunition by the Army but I doubt that it happened very often.

Ammunition was expensive, hard to transport and the .45-70 and .50-70 caliber rounds used by the Army were not commonly used in civilian arms at the time - especially not by the professional hunters who used big bore, large capacity rounds. The ammunition would have to be broken up so the powder and lead could be recycled. I would think that professional hunters had their preferences and would scoff at using the dirty, dry-shooting GI powder.

Soldiers serving on the frontier were allowed, even encouraged, to go hunting for big game on their off duty time with the intention of improving their riding and shooting skills but the soldiers had to reimburse the Army for any ammunition used. With such a policy in place for their own personnel why would the Army just hand out free ammo to anyone who asked for it?

Also, if ammunition were given away in sizable quantities there's a very good chance that some of it would end up in the hands of the enemy. With that said, I'm sure that plenty of Army ammunition was given away to those who knew the right people but I doubt that it was an official policy.

I also my doubts about there being an intentional plan to starve the Indians into submission by destroying the buffalo herds. Most people at the time thought the buffalo herds were inexhaustible so any plans to eradicate them would probably be considered futile. I also have a hard time believing that the Indians were completely and totally dependent on the buffalo. Wasn't there other game to hunt? What did they do to survive when the buffalo herd fluctuated naturally, as it surely did? What did they do before the White man brought the horses that greatly increased increased their hunting efficiency?

Have you ever read or seen what Buffalo Bill used.

quote:

It’s not unusual for a man to bestow a beloved moniker on his favorite fishing rod (Bessie), his shiny truck (Ol’ Red), his saber saw (Killer)—or his rifle. Even as far back as 1867, William F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody was no exception. When he acquired his “new buffalo killer,” a Springfield .50 caliber trapdoor needle gun, he christened it “Lucretia Borgia.”

Many people in this day and time don't really want to believe such things took place, but they actually did. It was not until the last decade or less of the slaughter that the big long range sharps came on the scene.

quote:

The .50-140 was created specifically with big game hunting in mind, and was the most powerful of the Sharps Buffalo cartridges.[5] However, this cartridge was introduced about the time that the last of the great buffalo herds had been destroyed.[6] An obsolete round, ammunition is not produced by any major manufacturer although reloading components and brass can be bought.

As for the military giving ammo away, maybe it did happen, maybe it didn't, but there sure are a lot of mentions of it happening for it to be completely a myth.