https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.joplinglobe.com/news/article_4494a1be-3583-11e4-b5be-001a4bcf887a.html&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoUMTQ4ODI1MjA0Mzk0OTg2OTE4MDIyGmRhOTdjZjk0NzgwNDY5OWE6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNE_ZTItYOIwmB8bxHIH4nJ5ptIKiQ
“While lying before our campfire last night, the
wolves set up their howling, apparently within
200 yards of us,” Schoolcraft wrote on Nov. 11,
1818, while camped along the Current River. “...
We had little apprehension for our safety ...
when we awoke, the wolves were still on an
adjacent hill.”
But even before Schoolcraft set out on his journey,
the territorial Legislature in Missouri had put out a
bounty on wolves — $2 if the animal was found within
two miles of a settlement.
Some settlers, he wrote, stripped the hide off captured
wolves and then released them; others knocked the
teeth out of the captured animals, then turned their dogs
on them.
Whatever the aboriginal population size, substantial depopulation occurred
Early settlers
describe interaction
with wolves
24
Posted: Saturday, September 6, 2014 12:03 am
In the winter of 1818-1819, a
young Henry Rowe Schoolcraft
— he would later become
famous as the man who discovered the source of
the Mississippi River — wandered west into the
largely unexplored Ozarks. For three months he
and a lone companion explored as far south and
west as modern-day Branson and the James River,
near Springfield, before entering Arkansas.
young Henry Rowe Schoolcraft
— he would later become
famous as the man who discovered the source of
the Mississippi River — wandered west into the
largely unexplored Ozarks. For three months he
and a lone companion explored as far south and
west as modern-day Branson and the James River,
near Springfield, before entering Arkansas.
His journal is filled with descriptions of game — deer,
turkey and elk — as well as large predators, including
wolves. He does not distinguish the species of wolf,
but most scientists and experts today believe it was
most likely the red wolf that lived deep in the Ozarks.
Once found throughout the Southeastern United
States, the red wolf is larger than a coyote but
smaller than a gray wolf.
turkey and elk — as well as large predators, including
wolves. He does not distinguish the species of wolf,
but most scientists and experts today believe it was
most likely the red wolf that lived deep in the Ozarks.
Once found throughout the Southeastern United
States, the red wolf is larger than a coyote but
smaller than a gray wolf.
“While lying before our campfire last night, the
wolves set up their howling, apparently within
200 yards of us,” Schoolcraft wrote on Nov. 11,
1818, while camped along the Current River. “...
We had little apprehension for our safety ...
when we awoke, the wolves were still on an
adjacent hill.”
Later, south of Springfield, he describes
“innumerable tracks of deer, wolf, elk, bear and
turkey” in the snow, “affording a perfect map of
their movements.”
“innumerable tracks of deer, wolf, elk, bear and
turkey” in the snow, “affording a perfect map of
their movements.”
But even before Schoolcraft set out on his journey,
the territorial Legislature in Missouri had put out a
bounty on wolves — $2 if the animal was found within
two miles of a settlement.
A generation after Schoolcraft, in 1844, Silas Turnbo
was born on the White River. Before he died in 1925,
he left behind an account of early Ozarks’ life that
includes stories of wolves. Turnbo does not distinguish
between wolf species, either, but notes that because
of attacks on livestock, settlers “did the acts of
savages and in some cases inflicted the most creel
(cruel) treatment on the ravenous beast they could
invent in payment for the destruction of property.”
was born on the White River. Before he died in 1925,
he left behind an account of early Ozarks’ life that
includes stories of wolves. Turnbo does not distinguish
between wolf species, either, but notes that because
of attacks on livestock, settlers “did the acts of
savages and in some cases inflicted the most creel
(cruel) treatment on the ravenous beast they could
invent in payment for the destruction of property.”
Some settlers, he wrote, stripped the hide off captured
wolves and then released them; others knocked the
teeth out of the captured animals, then turned their dogs
on them.
“They shot them, caught them in pen traps, steel traps,
poisoned them and destroyed whelps until it would seem
that there was not a live wolf left to tell the doleful tale
of their destruction, but instead of being exterminated,
they appeared to increase in numbers as fast as they
were thinned out.”
poisoned them and destroyed whelps until it would seem
that there was not a live wolf left to tell the doleful tale
of their destruction, but instead of being exterminated,
they appeared to increase in numbers as fast as they
were thinned out.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Thorton--
Native American Demographics
The indigenous tribal populations of North America north of the Rio Grande
River—referred to generically here as "Native Americans," a term encompassing
American Indians, Inuit (Eskimo), and Aleutian Islanders—declined drastically
following European colonization. How drastic the decline was is debated
since estimates of aboriginal population size for the area vary widely. The classic
estimate of aboriginal population size for this area is James Mooney's
1,152,000 million for North America north of the Rio Grande River at first
(extensive) European contact (see Mooney 1928). Subsequent scholars generally
accepted Mooney's estimate until 1966, when Henry Dobyns (1966) asserted
an aboriginal population size for North America north of Mexico of between
9.8 and 12.25 million; in i983, he increased his asserted size to 18 million
(north of Mesoamerica) (see Dobyns 1983).
Scholars now agree that Mooney's population estimate significantly underestimated
aboriginal population size for the area north of the Rio Grande River.
Most scholars also consider Dobyns's estimates to be excessive, although little
consensus for a higher population figure exists. Estimates vary from around 2
million by Douglas Ubelaker (1988) to almost 4 million (reduced from an earlier
estimate of almost 4.5 million) by William M. Denevan (1992 [1976], xviixxix)
to the slightly more than 7 million estimate I arrived at and continue to use
(see Thornton and Marsh-Thornton 1981, 47-53; Thornton 1987, 25-32).l
0026-3079/2005/4603/4-023S2.50/0 American Studies, 46:3/4 (Fall-Winter 2005): 23-38
Indigenous Studies Today, 1 (Fall 2005/Spring 2006)
23,24 Russell Thornton
My estimate includes somewhat more than 5 million people for the conterminous
United States area and somewhat more than 2 million for present-day Canada,
Alaska, and Greenland combined. (See Daniel 1992, for a recent, thorough consideration
of North American estimates.)
Whatever the aboriginal population size, substantial depopulation occurred
after Europeans commenced their conquest of North America, although the pattern
and extent of depopulation varied over time, from region to region and
from tribe to tribe.2 (And, the conquest was achieved in part because of the
depopulation, one beginning early in the sixteenth century and continuing to the
beginnings of the twentieth century.)
Much Native American population decline
resulted from European and African diseases introduced unintentionally
into this hemisphere. As Merbs concludes: "the two worlds of disease were
different enough so that the post-Columbian effects of Old World diseases on
the Native Americans was [sic] devastating" (Merbs 1992, 36). New diseases
which impacted native populations in the Western Hemisphere include smallpox,
measles, the bubonic plague, cholera, typhoid, diphtheria, scarlet fever,
various forms of influenza and whooping cough,3 malaria, and yellow fever as
well as some venereal diseases
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment