Visitor Counter

hitwebcounter web counter
Visitors Since Blog Created in March 2010

Click Below to:

Add Blog to Favorites

Coyotes-Wolves-Cougars.blogspot.com

Grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars/ mountain lions,bobcats, wolverines, lynx, foxes, fishers and martens are the suite of carnivores that originally inhabited North America after the Pleistocene extinctions. This site invites research, commentary, point/counterpoint on that suite of native animals (predator and prey) that inhabited The Americas circa 1500-at the initial point of European exploration and subsequent colonization. Landscape ecology, journal accounts of explorers and frontiersmen, genetic evaluations of museum animals, peer reviewed 20th and 21st century research on various aspects of our "Wild America" as well as subjective commentary from expert and layman alike. All of the above being revealed and discussed with the underlying goal of one day seeing our Continent rewilded.....Where big enough swaths of open space exist with connective corridors to other large forest, meadow, mountain, valley, prairie, desert and chaparral wildlands.....Thereby enabling all of our historic fauna, including man, to live in a sustainable and healthy environment. - Blogger Rick

Subscribe via email to get updates

Enter your email address:

Receive New Posting Alerts

(A Maximum of One Alert Per Day)

Monday, March 28, 2016

The Concho Valley region of Texas sits in the west-central part of state, significantly far removed from east Texas where Louisiana Black Bears have been recolonizing over the past few years.........The Bears have been absent from the Concho area for a good 100 years but seemingly are prospecting the region once again........... "One was killed along Centralia Draw in Reagan County in the early 1980s, and another in Menard County in 2009"............ "Also in 2009, one was seen in Glasscock County"............ "Several additional sightings and photographic evidence have come from Irion, Kerr and Kinney counties, apparently including a photograph from Irion County of a bear standing upright to feed at a deer feeder"................ "It is likely that black bears in and near the Concho Valley in recent years are from populations resident in the state of Coahuila in northern Mexico"............ "The bears there are of the race Ursus americanus amblycepa, the same as found in the Chisos Mountains of Big Bend National Park"........................The historical records kept by Explorers vividly document the impact Black Bears had upon their sighting..............."In 1684, Juan Dominguez de Mendoza led an expedition into West-Central Texas from Paso del Norte (El Paso) to the Colorado River"................................. "On March 16 at a site that Mendoza called San Clemente (probably near Menard on the San Saba River), his journal reports that he saw bears"................... "The Marques de Rubi inspected the Presidio de las Amarillas on the San Saba River near Menard in the summer of 1767"........................ "He continued his inspection tour on toward San Antonio de Bexar, and when just about 30 miles from Menard, he had the excitement of roping a bear".................................. "I would think bear roping to be a pretty dicey sport, but those Spaniards didn't lack for pluck"................................. "In December 1864, Kickapoo Indians of the famed Dove Creek battle, field-dressed bears on the Colorado River"........................ "And so it goes — historic anecdotes of bears in and near the Concho Valley in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries"

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/local/naturally-texas-black-bears-are-a-past-predator-for-the-area-2e8f9913-02d6-1eb2-e053-0100007fd34c-373642781.html&ct=ga&cd=CAEYASoUMTE4NTk2MjYwOTg3Mzg5Mzk3NDUyGjU2ZDFlN2YxOWU4Zjk5OTE6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNEy5eQgD8jFKYXxOHnL46AX8ziiyQ


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiLv_rojOXLAhUC7CYKHZiOBu8QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftamupress.com%2Fproduct%2FWildlife-of-the-Concho-Valley%2C7549.aspx&usg=AFQjCNGRu07SuLFVuJq1Y2gNGTFLnkCfXQ



Black bears are
 a past predator
 for the Concho
area


Contributed photo Illustration of a black bear by T.C. Maxwell.
 The bears are classified as carnivores, but they're basically omnivores.
Contributed photo Illustration of a black bear by T.C. Maxwell. The bears are classified as carnivores, but they're basically omnivores.















The Concho Valley
of Texas with San
Angelo it's largest City

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Our friend Carter Neimeyer has just published his 2nd book entitled "wolf land".............Many of you devoured Carter's initial literary effort, "Wolfer" back in 2012,....... His then eye-opening biographical sketch, comments and insights on his time working for the U.S. Agriculture's "Wildlife Services" killing Wolves and other carnivores for Ranchers and Farmers was simultaneously disturbing and riveting to read............Even more insightful and profound was how he was then selected to help protect and reintroduce the species back into Yellowstone in 1995............"wolf land" continues Carter's story----- "A collection of nonfiction "campfire" stories sharing memorable field experiences about his interactions with wolves and people"................."wolf land" is available from Amazon.com, fine bookstores and from the author himself,,,,,,,,,,,,Carter is happy for you to buy a signed copy directly from him----Contact Carter at carterandjennyniemeyer@gmail.com..................I just ordered my copy!................ I could not put Carter's "Wolfer" down 3 years ago so I know a treat is in store for me(and you) when "wolf land" arrives at our front doors---Enjoy!




From: ";carterandjennyniemeyer@gmail.com
Subject: Wolf Land is available - finally!




Hello friends, neighbors, and colleagues. I want to announce my new book, Wolf Land, is now available from Amazon, your favorite bookstores or directly from me. If you want a signed copy, send me your request along with a mailing address. For gifts to others, I can sign the book and send it directly to them if an address is provided.

Wolf Land is a collection of nonfiction "campfire" stories sharing memorable field experiences about my interactions with wolves and people.

If you know anyone interested in a package deal, we are selling signed copies of Wolf Land along with my first book, Wolfer, for $30 plus a minimal shipping cost.

Thanks and happy reading,

Carter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is an excerpt from the book
"The wolves move around in the veil of white, focused mostly
on a dark bump in the middle of the meadow – the elk carcass,
presumably. Big wolves and smaller wolves. Ravens swarm,
waiting for a turn. We watch for an hour or so, occasionally
turning on the telemetry receiver to check for the radio-collared
wolf. It’s not there. Soon the valley goes quiet. The wolves steal
away, disappearing one by one into the steep country to the east,
away from people like us who want to pry into their lives.
"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carter's WOLF LAND begins in THE FRANK CHURCH
RIVER-NO RETURN WILDERNESS in Idaho
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACK COVER OF WOLF LAND









































































Carter's first book, WOLFER

Thursday, March 24, 2016

The need to provide connecting corridors for wildife is more important than ever with our human population on the rise and now up to 330 million,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,with 400 million projected by 2050!,,,,,,,,,,,,This increased "human load" will witness a large increase in cars and time spent on highways............Additional highway underpasses and overpasses will be so needed to move the gene pool of wild creatures from region to region so as to not "bottleneck" them up in a given locale with its resulting inbreeding leading to birth deformites and death...............It is now demonstrated via the existing "culverts" across roads spanning all regions of the USA that Grizzly Bears, Wolves, Elk, Moose and Deer favor high, wide and open overpasses while Pumas, Black Bears, Martens and Coyotes favor long, low and narrow underpasses............Limiting human use of both type culverts is also key in encouraging wildlife usage........ We also must exhibit patience once these culverts are created as it can take months and even years for wildlife to adapt and trust these connective arteries to be "safe-haven" crossings for them



From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:59 PM
To: Meril, Rick; Larry Brown; Kim Lamorie; fixequip@yahoo.com; Mary Wiesbrock; sheila@bos.lacounty.gov; sarah@sen.ca.gov; senator.pavley@sen.ca.gov
Subject: RE: certain animals prefer overpasses,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,others underpasses

Banff National Park

Frequently Asked Questions



Why do animals cross the highway?
Animals need to cross the highway to search out companionship, mates, food, shelter, and in some cases, to escape predators.
Do highway fencing and wildlife crossing structures work and do they reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions?
It took up to five years for some wary species, like grizzly bears, to start using wildlife crossing structures; however, most species are now using them to safely cross the Trans-Canada Highway (TCH). Since fencing and crossing structures were first constructed, wildlife-vehicle collisions have dropped by more than 80%.

Puma using underpass

















Do animals prefer underpasses or overpasses?
Wildlife use underpasses and overpasses alike; however, when given a choice each species seems to have distinct preferences. Grizzly bears, wolves, elk, moose and deer prefer crossing structures that are high, wide and short in length, while black bears and cougars tend to prefer long, low and narrow underpasses.



Black Bear using underpass






Is use of the crossing structures by wildlife changing over time?
Yes. As wildlife populations fluctuate, the number of occasions individuals of a particular species use the crossings also rises or falls. We have also learned that some animals need time to adapt to new structures on the landscape. For example, overpass use gradually increased for grizzly bears, cougars, and wolves over the first five years of monitoring.
Does human use of wildlife crossings affect how animals use them?
Yes. When people use crossings, animals tend to use them less. Human use of overpasses is prohibited in Banff National Park.


Bobcat using underpass






How do small animals get across the highway?
Small and medium-sized animals, such as snowshoe hare, pine marten, fisher, porcupine, squirrels and voles, have different requirements for movement across the TCH. Pine martens, snowshoe hare and red squirrels used drainage culverts more often when traffic volumes were high, while coyotes used them less.
What is the greatest threat to healthy wildlife populations?
Road-kill has an immediate and direct effect on a population, easily seen within one or two animal generations. On the other hand, complete barrier effects (i.e. not being able to cross an obstacle like a highway) can take several generations to develop within a population. Barrier effects on a grizzly bear population may take as long as 50 years to measure and can have serious repercussions on genetic diversity and overall health.
How do we know where to put future wildlife crossings?
Over the years, information about where different species are most likely to cross the highway has been collected using:
  • radio telemetry monitoring 
  • animal tracks in the snow 
  • wildlife observations, and 
  • road kill hot spots
Wildlife movement models were built using mapping software to predict the most likely locations for wildlife travel across the TCH based on topography and habitat data for five species (black and grizzly bears, wolves, elk and moose). Locations for future wildlife crossing structures were then identified.


Coyotes using underpasses
























Wolf using Bannff Park overpass



Why are animals still occasionally killed on the highway?
Occasionally, individual animals do get into the highway right-of-way. Research is currently underway to test the use of "electro-mats" as an additional deterrent to wildlife at certain breaks in highway fencing. An electro-mat will provide a mild 'sting' to the paw, hoof or nose that touches it. While the shock does not harm the animal, it will hopefully encourage it to choose another path away from the highway. 


From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Meril, Rick; Larry Brown; Kim Lamorie; fixequip@yahoo.com; Mary Wiesbrock; sheila@bos.lacounty.gov; sarah@sen.ca.gov; senator.pavley@sen.ca.gov
Subject: certain animals prefer overpasses,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,others underpasses

Bear hair study in Banff proves animal highway crossings work
Katie Mast Aug. 11, 2013Web Exclusive

For three years, researchers from Montana State University spent their summers collecting bear hair. The samples, collected on both sides of the 50 mile stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway that cuts through Banff National Park, prove what the researchers had suspected: wildlife underpasses and bridges were helping enough bears move back and forth across the highway to keep the populations healthy.

The Trans-Canada Highway stretches nearly 5,000 miles acrowss the country, rolling through each of the nation's 10 provinces and connecting the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The 100 miles that pass through Banff National Park is a blip in the entire stretch of highway, but a potentially deadly obstacle for the wildlife that live in the park. Demand for a bigger, faster road system prompted a widening of the highway in the 1990s. During construction, engineers lined the highway with fencing and built underpasses and bridges for animals to cross, with the theory they would reduce collisions and provide animals safe passage. However, the decision was controversial as there was little data to backup the hunch.
An overpass in Banff National Park, built just for wildlife, helps reduce highway collisions and connect fragmented habitat.
Construction of animal crossings has skyrocketed since they were first implemented in the 1970s, and Rob Ament, director of the Road Ecology Program at Montana State University says that research has shown as much as 80 to 90 percent decrease in vehicle-wildlife collisions in areas with the structures. Yet without proof that wide crossings are crucial to wildlife, planners have been reluctant to keep building them, especially overpasses, which are more costly and time-consuming than underpasses. MSU's bear hair study proves that not only do animal crossings benefit humans, but also that both underpasses and the more expensive overpasses may be critical to some species' survival.

While deadly run-ins with vehicles is a gruesome end for many animals, the fate of about 1 million vertebrates each day, fragmentation of habitat has brought some species near extinction. Whether unable or unwilling to cross a road, animals living on one side that can't encounter animals on the other side means isolation of genes, what biologists call the "island effect."
A wildlife camera captures this bear using an underpass in British Columbia.

The crossings in Banff National Park include two wide overpasses covered in vegetation that helps them resemble the surrounding habitat. Underpasses provide the cover cougars and many small mammals need, while the bridges and overpasses let moose and elk traverse in their preferred open-sky habitats. Cameras at each of the passageways have recorded hundreds of thousands of crossings for many different species, including bears, wolves, lynx, deer, elk and moose. A wolverinemade the news when a camera captured its walk across an overpass, becoming the first such venture recorded for its species. But cameras couldn't help scientists collect data about individual crossings. "We could show that there were a lot of crossings, but what did that mean? Was it one bear crossing 100 times or 100 different bears crossing once?" Ament and the researchers at MSU wondered. Answering this question was critical to understanding overall health of the animal communities.

What the researchers discovered was encouraging. Over the three-year study, 15 different grizzly bears and 17 different black bears used the crossings. While those may not seem like huge numbers, they represent a significant portion of the populations. Using estimates of the populations of grizzlies and black bears in Banff, these individuals represented close to 20 percent of the population for both species. Previous research estimates that, for large mammals like bears, about 10 percent of a population needs to cross back and forth to ensure a healthy ecosystem. Comparing samples from year to year and in different locations, the researchers can begin to construct family trees for the bears and observe genetic diversity in offspring.

To collect the hair samples, researchers set up lines of barbed wire by several of the crossings. As bears passed, the barbs would snag a bit of hair. To learn about the bears' movement once they crossed, the team also set up wires near trees that the bears used as scratching posts. Finally, they doused piles of wood 8.5 miles from the highway with cow blood and fish emulsion, a stomach-turning scent for us but an enticing curiosity for the bears. Again, when the bears came to investigate, barbed wire nearby would help keep track of which bears visited.

Over three years, the team collected more than 10,000 strands of bear hair. In addition to finding out that the passageways helped keep the populations healthy, the researchers learned that grizzlies preferred the wide-open overpasses while black bears primarily used the underpasses. Roughly equal numbers of males and females for both species used the crossings, and the genetic sampling lets biologists know more about the population's family trees. While the team could have chosen any number of species to monitor, they knew there were enough bears to collect significant data and, since scientists are concerned about their declining populations, the data could be relevant in broader studies.

While animal crossings have proven successful in reducing wildlife collisions on highways and, now, in connecting fragmented habitat, they're not the cure-all for animals who need continuous open space to roam. Crossings won't solve the challenges faced along the pronghorn's 120-mile migration by development. And, as editor Jodi Peterson noted, the fences and crossings don't manage to keep every animal off the highway. However, as China develops its highway system at a rate of 5,000 km per year and Mongolia constructs its first paved 
highway, Ament is pleased that these countries are looking to Montana State University for expertise. "We are trying to encourage them to not do it like us," he says, but rather, consider the ecology as an important component to their construction plans.

Katie Mast is an editorial intern at High Country News.
Image of Banff Wildlife Overpass courtesy of Adam Fagen via Flickr.


Tuesday, March 22, 2016

U. of Guelph, Trent U., Canadian Forest Service and the Ministry of Natural Resources completed their 2010-14 study of Woodland Caribou revealing that man created habitat loss and degradation of the land due to mining and forestry practices is what is causing the drastic shrinking of the Ontario Caribou herds................Furthermore, Canadian Parks came out in 2015 with a strong report saying that if Caribou decline is to be halted in Ontario, there must be an immediate moratorium on further industrialization of any kind...........Additionally, as the weather warms, Aspen and Birch forests which take advantage of accelerating temperatures are moving northward, causing Moose who browse in these type forests to also move north..............Both these plants and animals are encroaching on Caribou territory.................And when the Moose move north near Caribou, so do the Wolves that prey on Moose..............Then, prey switching occurs with Wolves stalking the once hidden(and easier to kill) Caribou, who prefer the colder weather associated spruce, pine and other conifer forest types...............This conifer forest historically kept Caribou better hidden and farther out of reach from Wolves...................A very difficult cycle to undue indeed...............Of course, at every noticeable downturn in Caribou numbers, the knee-jerk response from Government Officials is to go shoot Wolves so as to be able to turn to the unknowing Public and claim that the "boogey-man" wolves are the culprits and are being killed off to help the Caribou recover-----SO TERRIBLY FLAWED THESE TYPE ACTIONS ARE................Bottom line, Ontario is not willing to put a science based recovery paradigm in place to really help the Caribou-.-----Read full article by clicking on link

http://wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dybas_caribou.pdf

ONTARIO'S VANISHING CARIBOU: 
ARE WOLVES
REALLY THE CULPRIT?



















Monday, March 21, 2016

Yesterdays Post that discussed and revealed John Lawson's AD 1700 first hand account and writings about the BEASTS OF CAROLINA generated a lively, informative and robust exchange of ideas between Ecologist and Environmental Activist, George Wuerthner.............As many of you know, George is second to none in his knowledge of natural systems, rewilding, the benefits of trophic carnivores, amongst a host of other wildlife and wildlands issues...........George challenged my repeating what the majority of ecological historians postulate about the pre-Clumbian indigenous population levels of what today is the USA and about how most of these "experts" are adamant that european diseases like smallpox eradicted up to 90% of those people...................George makes the case via a series of emails(below) that indigenous populations likely were relatively small(perhaps 1-4 million in the now 50 states and not the 50 to 100 million that many historians put forth..............All of this discussion centering around what kind of human density would allow for perhaps 30-50 million Bison, and several hundred thousand Wolves, Pumas, Black and Grizzly Bears at the time of European contact, circa AD 1500 in pre-Columbian America.......................You can scroll to the bottom of this chain for a chronological read of our exchange or go top down if you so prefer.................My thanks to George Wuerthner for his consistent contributions to both the ecological health of the USA and this Blog

Ecologist photographer, author, and activist, George Wuerthner has published more than thirty books on America’s wild places. His books include Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy and Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation. Wuerthner has served on the boards of several regional and national conservation organizations, and lives in Helena, Montana.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:30 PM
To: 'George Wuerthner'
Subject: RE: The Black plague took some 100 years to repopulate from a 20 to 40% killing event

Agreed that the lower 1 to 3.5 million figure seems more logical…………….

George, as you say, many other debilitating factors at play for the Indians as we Europeans went on a killing spree to eliminate them east of the Mississippi by the close
Of the Revolutionary war, circa AD1800(300 year elimination event from the dawn of European colonization, circa AD 1500………………..and a "snap of the fingers" west of the Mississippi elimination
Of the indigenous population in a scant 90 years(1800-1890 as the Sioux and Apache major conflicts came to a close)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Wuerthner [mailto:gwuerthner@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:26 PM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: Re: The Black plague took some 100 years to repopulate from a 20 to 40% killing event

There you go. If indians suffered a 50% decline within a hundred or so years their populations should be back to something approaching the pre disease of course a whole lot of other factors affected that but even if there was only a 50% decline you would still see a lot more evidence of Indian effects on the land if the populations were as high as some suggest ie let's say there were a hundred million and some report 50 million Indians would still have a big impact if there were that many that's why I go with the low figures again thinking about this like predators it would be hard to imagine even 4 million wolves in North America could been supported by the population of prey


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mar 21, 2016 5:19 PM, "Meril, Rick" <Rick.Meril@warnerbros.com> wrote:
The Black Death reached England in August 1348. It first appeared in Dorset and had spread to London by November. It reached Norwich by January 1349, Dublin by the summer, and Edinburgh early in 1350.

In the next eighteen months, between around 20 and 40 percent of the English population died.Heavily populated areas suffered worst. Half the monks of Westminster Abbey, for example, died. Whereas the normal number of wills registered in London each year was about twenty (only rich men made wills,) in 1348-9 the number was over 370.


Burying plague victims at Tournai
The psychological impact of this first outbreak of plague was immense, but its immediate economic consequences were less drastic than might be expected.
The initial outbreak seems to have killed largely adult victims, and its first effect was to reduce the shortage of land and food.
However, although the plague disappeared in 1350, it returned in 1361 in what was known as "The Pestilence of the Children." This outbreak killed the young disproportionately since they did not have the acquired immunity of those who had lived through 1348-50. Further outbreaks hit in 1368-9, 1374-5 and 1378.
The subsequent outbreaks reduced the population of England by half, and did not begin to recover until after 1450.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Wuerthner [mailto:gwuerthner@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:09 PM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: Re: 3.5 million is this gentleman's projection in north america

Yes I have read his paper. And others have taken his estimate for all of the  New World and used that number for North America. Charles Mann, for instance, in 1491 (if I remember correctly) uses the 100 million number. I just watched a movie a few weeks ago that also used that number. 

3.8 for all of North America seems within reason with some assumptions. But again this is nothing more than a guess. And again there are so many assumptions in these numbers about the decline. As I suggested, most attribute decline to disease--which I definitely think was an issue--but there are many other plausible explanations for observations. I.e. abandoned villages, and so forth that the "disease' proponents use. 

I do not think the marks of humans would have vanished so quickly if there were millions upon millions of Indians. And the second question is how rapidly would they repopulate the continent even after a die off. I.e. how long does it take for a die off of several million to recover to pre die off numbers? For instance, the doubling time for a population growing at just 2% a year is 35 years. So let's assume that half of NA indians did die of disease, in 35 years, they would be back to the original number--all other things being equal. I realize that there were other factors at work, but you get my point. Even if there were around 4 million Indians in NA and half died, you would be back up to 4 million in a relatively short time--if indeed, there were that many people here

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:35 PM
To: 'George Wuerthner'
Subject: 3.5 million is this gentleman's projection in north america



The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the
Americas in 1492
William M. Denevan
Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Abstract. The myth persists that in 1492 the Americas were a sparsely populated wilderness, -a world of barely perceptible human disturbance.- There is substantial evidence, however, that the Native American landscape of the early sixteenth century was a humanized landscape almost everywhere. Populations were large. Forest composition had been modified, grasslands had been created, wildlife disrupted, and erosion was severe in places. Earthworks, roads, fields, and settlements were ubiquitous. With Indian depopulation in the wake of Old World disease, the environment recovered in many areas. A good argument can be made that the human presence was less visible in 1750 than it was in 1492.




Indian Numbers
The size of the native population at contact is critical to our argument. The prevailing position, a recent one, is that the Americas were well-populated rather than relatively empty lands in 1492. In the words of the sixteenth-century Spanish priest, Bartolomé de las Casas, who knew the Indies well:
All that has been discovered up to the year forty-nine 115491 is full of people, like a hive of bees, so that it seems as though God had placed all, or the greater part of the entire human race in these countries (Las Casas, in MacNutt 1909, 314).


I have recently suggested a New World total of 53.9 million (Denevan 1992, xxvii). This divides into 3.8 million for North America, 17.2 million for Mexico, 5.6 million for Central America, 3.0 million for the Caribbean, 15.7 million for the Andes, and 8.6 million for lowland South America. These figures are based on my judgment as to the most reasonable recent tribal and regional estimates. Accepting a margin of error of about 20 percent, the New World population would lie between 43-65 million.

 Future regional revisions are likely to maintain the hemispheric total within this range. Other recent estimates, none based on totaling regional figures, include 43 million by Whitmore (1991, 483), 40 million by Lord and Burke (1991), 40-50 million by Cowley (1991), and 80 million for just Latin America by Schwerin (1991, 40). In any event, a population between 40-80 million is sufficient to dispel any notion of "empty lands." Moreover, the native impact on the landscape of 1492 reflected not only the population then but the cumulative effects of z growing population over the previous 15,000 years or more.

European entry into the New World abruptly reversed this trend. The decline of native American populations was rapid and severe, probably the greatest demographic disaster eve; (Lovell, this volume). Old World diseases were the primary killer. In many regions, particularly the tropical lowlands, populations fell by 90 percent or more in the first century after the contact. Indian populations (estimated) declined Hispaniola from 1 million in 1492 to a few hundred 50 years later, or by more than 99 percent in Peru from 9 million in 1520 to 670,000 in 1620 (92 percent); in the Basin of Mexico from 1.6 million in 1519 to 180,000 in 107 (89 percent); and in North America from 3.8 million in 1492 to 1 million in 1800 (74 percent).

 An overall drop from 53.9 million in 1492 to 5.6 million in 1650 amounts to an 89 percent reduction (Denevan 1992, xvii-xxix). The human landscape was affected accordingly, although there is not always a direct relationship between population density and human impact (Whitmore, et al. 1990, 37).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 2:30 PM
To: 'George Wuerthner'
Subject: FW: indian density in what is now mainland USA

George…………….see pages 40-42 on the attachment………………..In 1890, low point of Native Americans based on some
Type census stated 250,000……………..High point pre European colonization estimated between a low of 1million to a high of 10,000,000.

This paper estimates the lower figure, a 4 to 1 rather than a 40 to 1 low to high level

From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:39 PM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: indian density



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Wuerthner <gwuerthner@gmail.com>
Date: March 21, 2016 at 11:46:54 AM PDT
To: "Meril, Rick" <Rick.Meril@warnerbros.com>
Subject: Re: estimates of Indians may be off

Rick

Abandoned villages? Yes, because they were living on crops. They only got 2-3 crops before soils were exhausted and they had to move on to a new location. Even sometimes exhausting wood supplies--remember you are carrying all this wood on your back. You also hunt out the local deer, etc. How far are you going to carry firewood? How far are you going to carry a deer?  Slash and burn ag depends on continuous movement--every few years and guess what you have "abandoned" villages. 

 So how many of those "abandoned" villages represented the natural process of exhausting local supplies of wood, game, and ag lands before moving to a new location? People can over consume especially when they have no way to increase their production. 

Think about how many abandoned villages would be evident if you had to up and move every 3-4 years. 

Then there were regular wars between tribes. Villages were abandoned just as we have empty zones around the world today on the battle lines between warring countries. Go to the old border between EAst and West Germany  (which is now a big national park) because the villages there were abandoned. Now suppose you did not know the history and you came upon those villages--ah, the explanation must be they were wiped out by disease--if you wanted to use that excuse. 

Well maybe and maybe not. These historians act like Indians were somehow different than all other humans. Heck very likely our ancestors, including Indians, helped to wipe out Neanderthals.  People are continuously at war and in the pre-European days, tribal conflicts often led to abandoned villages. 

Starvation was common as well. One harsh winter and entire villages could be depopulated, and/or so weak that adjacent tribes would push them into other territories. there is the winter of 1816 when summer did not come. Many New Englanders almost starved, but by then we had sailing ships, etc. so food could be moved. And then were are diseases that could affect food staples--a disease that wipes out deer for a few years or causes your corn crop to fail. Just like the potato famine in Ireland. What this never happened in North America? 

The problem is that since there is no written history, people make up stories that fits their preexisting narrative. The narrative is that there had to be a lot of Indians, and the Europeans were nasty folks who came and killed off all the Indians to take their lands. The second narrative is that Indians were not primitive and "managed" everything--somehow doing this with no technology to speak of--and all of NA was one big farmed landscape. Well then you have to have large human populations if you are going to affect everything as your story goes, so you have to figure out how large numbers of Indians were around for a long time, but disappeared suddenly--the simple answer is disease. 

 Look at Europe where we have good histories. There were famines all the time that continuously that led to major population declines. One cold spring, crops failed, and people starved in mass. 

These environmental historians are selective in their causes of population decline and abandonment because they want to make it sound like Indian populations were much higher. 

But you have to think about it from an ecological perspective, and Indian people (as all low technology people) had natural limits on their populations. And they often fluctuated significantly due to events that today would seem inconsequential. For instance, I bet if the same drought now hitting California today happened 500 years ago, you would have seen a major population decline in Indians just as you would see in other wildlife. Almost all of the food resources except for food from the sea would be limited. People be dying from starvation, as well as wars between tribal units. 

It's just like wolf packs. If you have  a population decline in elk, wolf packs fight each other. The population of wolves in Yellowstone declined by 50%. If it were environmental historians, they would have said diseases were responsible (and I know there was some disease in Y'stone wolves too--but the population decline was mostly due to declining prey base). Wolves are a perfect metaphor for humans. 

Again, you cannot support high human populations for very long on primitive technology. Without beasts of burden, without the wheel, without metal, without water and wind power, without fishing nets, in fact, until recently without even the bow and arrow. That is the question these people asserting such high human numbers must answer. How do you sustain high numbers without anything other than basic resource exploitive methods and equipment. You can't. Even the addition of metal knives, and axes greatly increased the ability of tribes to exploit their environment. Add in horses, and guns, and wow you have a regular population explosion. 



On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Meril, Rick <Rick.Meril@warnerbros.com> wrote:
thanks George.........and the Hawaiians, decimate by the Pox?????????

We see how the Indians were decimated by alcohol, their systems even today intolerant of "drink",,,,,,,,

Do not the remaining hunter/gatherer tribes in the Amazon get medical assistance........I have seen this written about????

Virtually every diary account of the colonial period mentions abandoned east coast Indian villages upon colonists coming off the boats and stepping onto North American land for the first time.........

Your points about the plains Indians dragging bison without horses makes sense........Horses amongst the tribes during the mid 1500's after Spanish let many loose?????

population explosion west of mississippi as this occurred?

Eastern woodland Indians had enough "hands" to bring in deer to villages??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Wuerthner [mailto:gwuerthner@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 10:07 AM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: Re: estimates of Indians may be off

What they do is come up with an estimate made out of the blue, then they say if there were 100  million (or whatever the number is) then there had to be a 90% reduction. 

Disease no doubt did affect some tribes.i could see up to a 50% reduction of some tribes in the worse cases. But I'm willing to bet it was less in many instance. 

 I'm not saying it didn't occur. But more importantly was how it may have affected their competitive fitness. I.e. a tribe with some dying people could not defend themselves against other tribes or they might miss an important seasonal food concentration, and starved. 

We are not seeing 90% die off of Indians in the Amazon, etc. today who have no greater resistance to disease than their forebearers centuries before. I am convinced these numbers are exaggerations. 

Keep in mind that most environmental historians do not understand ecology. They also have an agenda. They ignore the effects of changing climate which affected many tribes far more than diseases. For instance, major droughts on the Great Plains led to a depopulation of the region duet o a major decline in bison. The few tribes that survived on the plains migrated to the rivers like the Missouri and started to grow corn. 

or how about the Anazasi who abandoned all those cliff dwellings around 1100-1200 AD? No disease is a factor because this was before there were Europeans to blame for the population decline. But a major drought is likely the cause. 

These historians do not think ecologically. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Meril, Rick
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:59 AM
To: 'George Wuerthner'
Subject: RE: estimates of Indians may be off

George………………good counterpoint and caution urged by you on this………………Interesting that Lawson himself cites that the Indian "head men" that he encountered on his journey all spoke of the fact that only only some 15% of their respective tribes were alive today(AD 1700) compared to just 3o years earlier,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the majority taken by the Pox…………………..

Also described is the fact that the Indians were much cleaner and healthier,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"tall and well built" than the typical European………………………The natives bathed daily, lean meat, fish and plant foods………………….

Why do you think so many Ecological historians subscribe to the larger pop. Estimates?(below)













 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Wuerthner [mailto:gwuerthner@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:25 AM
To: Meril, Rick
Subject: estimates of Indians may be off

Rick

I read all the time those estimates that 90% of the Indians perished from disease. Be suspect of those estimates. They are based on nothing more than guesses. And the numbers don't really add up. I.e. if Indian populations were as high as this would suggest, we would have seen far more evidence of their activites on the landscape. Not to mention that there are ecological limits. Without wheels, beasts of burden, and the most primitive Ag how could you support such high numbers of people? 

If you look at the higher of the population estimates, they suggest there were more than twice as many Indians in NA than there were people in northern Europe at the same time (1300s). And this without iron, metal, wind mills, even fish nets, etc. Just doesn't add up. 

i think the reason for these high estimates are to try to suggest that Indians modified much of North America, thus were "important" and of course, some suggest that our modification of NA is OK because you know the Indians were modifying NA as well.

This is not to suggest that in the immediate area around a population center, there was not some modification of the landscape. But those modifications were modest. 

Think about something as simple as killing bison. Without horses and the wheel, how would you get all that meat back to a village? You could not. Thus Indians had to live in very sparse groups to be able to take advantage of seasonal food opportunities. Except perhaps for tribes living in coastal areas where fish, mussels, etc. were abundant, there is questions about how much population you could support.