"A 5 year U. of Alberta Study to determine how to best keep Grizzly Bears off of railway tracks has determined that giving grizzlies better travel paths and sightlines along rail paths is the best way to keep the bears safe from trains".................Suggested deterrents include---- 1) use electromats and fences around railroad lubrication stations where bears sometimes enjoy a good lick of grease, 2) trim vegetation that attracts bears near rail lines and open escape paths for them where trees and bush now block the way, 3) use prescribed burns to create more areas of good bear grazing away from train tracks, 4) utilize flashing lights and sounding alarms in areas that bears traverse so as to give them more warning of approaching trains

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/grizzly-bears-trains-banff-cp-rail-study-confusion-1.3951798&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTMzQxODI4NjYxOTYwMjAzNDEwNjIaNTZkMWU3ZjE5ZThmOTk5MTpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNHDDDJht_QwstKvzLCkCNR3OUNliw

Grizzly bears need better sightlines and signals along rail lines, 5-year study concludes:

Parks Canada and CP Rail to take further steps to reduce chances of train-wildlife collisions

By Robson Fletcher, CBC News Posted: Jan 25, 2017

A sort of bear equivalent to railway crossing signals at 

certain, high-risk points along rail lines through Banff

could help reduce collisions, says a researcher with the

 University of Alberta. (Left: CBC / Right: Dan Rafla/

Parks Canada)

Imagine you're a grizzly bear in Banff, just trying to live your grizzly bear life, but you keep running into all those annoying tourists.

The most sensible response, of course, is to wait until they all go to bed to do your roaming around. And naturally, you decide to follow the train tracks, since it's the easiest path through all those dense trees.

Suddenly, a freight train comes 'round the bend, with its bright lights glaring, engine roaring and horn blaring.

What do you do? You panic.

At least, that's what lots of grizzlies do when they find themselves in that scary situation, according to Colleen Cassady St. Clair, a University of Alberta biologist who directed a five-year study into train-wildlife collisions.

Bears and other animals often freeze in place when confronted with an oncoming freight train, she said, or they try to run in the opposite direction of the fast-approaching lights.

"But they can't outrun the train," she said.

Winding tracks and noise from the nearby Trans-Canada 

Highway in Banff National Park can lead animals to be 

surprised and confused when suddenly confronted with

 an oncoming freight train, researchers believe.

 (Sonia Nicholl/Parks Canada)

Researchers tracked about a dozen bears between 2010 and 2015 using radio collars to find out when and where they went walking along the rail line.

The study, funded by CP Rail and Parks Canada, looked into the role that spilled grain from leaking rail cars plays in attracting bears onto the tracks, but the results suggest that's just one among many factors that lead to grizzly fatalities.

St. Clair said the grizzlies frequent the rail line at the west end of Banff National Park more often, but there tend to be more fatalities in the east end.

"In the east end of the park, there is more human use near the rail, including near where many strikes have occurred," she said. "And bears seem to be more nocturnal in their use of the rail in that location, probably to avoid people."

That area is also near the noise of heavy trucks that use the Trans-Canada Highway at night, making it harder for bears to hear approaching trains, so walking along winding sections of that track — in the dark — can lead to sudden surprises for grizzlies.

"The cumulative effect in that location is confusion," St. Clair said. "And confusion is the thing that we think ultimately causes the mortality."

Possible solutions

The study concluded that giving grizzlies better travel paths and sightlines along rail lines is the best way to keep the bears safe from trains.

"We're actively going to be more involved in creating more trails for bears to be able to move past impediments on the railroad," said Rick Kubian with Parks Canada.

"Those pinch points on the landscape where bears are forced to the railroad, we're looking at a few locations where we might be able to provide alternatives for bears so they don't have to travel that corridor."

A grizzly bear reacts after stepping on an 'electromat' 

placed along train tracks as

 a wildlife deterrent. (Parks Canada)

Parks Canada also plans to use prescribed burns to create more areas of good bear grazing away from train tracks, Kubian said.

In addition, CP will spend $750,000 over three years to trim vegetation that attracts bears near rail lines and open escape paths for them where trees and bush now block the way, said Joe van Humbeck, an environmental assessment manager with the company.

The company will also use electromats and fences around railroad lubrication stations, where bears sometimes enjoy a good lick of grease.

Crossing signals for bears

Both CP and Parks Canada are experimenting with flashing lights and sounding alarms in areas that bears are likely to use to give them more warning of approaching trains. A device is being tested in four locations.

"We are waiting to see the results," van Humbeck said. "The initial indications are quite positive."

St. Clair said it's possible the program could be expanded, targeting areas that are the most high-risk for collisions.

"We could install mitigation at those sites — perhaps the devices we've invented, perhaps some other kinds of  mitigation — that wouldn't be practical to install along the whole track, partly because animals would habituate to it," she said.

"But if it's localized to the places where the danger actually is heightened, it could be very effective, just as train crossing signals are effective for humans, as drivers and as pedestrians."

Wildlife fatalities

The study began in 2010 after bear deaths along the CP line through Banff National Park grew to account for nearly one-third of all bear deaths in the park.

Van Humbeck said there hasn't been a confirmed grizzly death along the railroad since 2012.

Four wolves were killed last year after being hit by trains in Banff.

Greater Yellowstone biologists are suggesting that the Elk population that numbered some 19,000 at the time of the Gray Wolf re-introduction into the Yellowstone National Park(YNP) in 1995 has reached some type of rough equilibrium with some 5000-6500 Elk now in residence ................Additionally, some 89% of the Elk herd wintered outside the Park this year even though this Winter has not been overly severe...........Historically 30 to 40% of the Elk herd would leave the Park in Winter.................From their peak population of some 175 in 2003-04 and again in 2007, the Park's Wolf population has fallen and has averaged 100 strong over the past 7-year span 2009-16 ....................Is the 100 Wolf/5-6000 Elk paradigm what the YNP landscape prefers best as it relates to optimum biological diversity?.............Has the Wolf created a"LANDSCAPE OF FEAR" among the Elk inducing the significantly higher % of Winter migration outside the Park?

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/environment/northern-yellowstone-elk-numbers-stable-more-migrating-into-montana/article_e1ceebac-8039-5ee8-8373-2e85286a84b5.html#utm_source=bozemandailychronicle.com&utm_campaign=morning-headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

Northern Yellowstone elk numbers stable; more migrating into Montana

State and federal biologists say elk numbers in the northern part of Yellowstone National Park and the parts of Montana just outside have stabilized after a long-term decline, and that most of those elk migrate into Montana.

Results from the most recent Northern Yellowstone Wildlife Working Group elk survey were released on Monday, showing that state and federal biologists counted 5,349 elk in Yellowstone’s northern range and areas near Gardiner earlier this month. That’s a 9 percent increase over 2016, the highest number they’ve counted since 2010 and the third consecutive year the count surpassed 4,800, leading biologists to say the elk have rebounded from a significant decline that began in the mid 1990s.

“We’ve come up from that low point and the last three years the herd has seemed to be pretty stable,” said Karen Loveless, an area biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

The number is considered a minimum count — biologists counted only the elk that they saw, and there may be more that they did not see. Doug Smith, a biologist with Yellowstone, said the margin of error varies, but that there might be as much as 30 percent more elk than they counted. Still, they are confident the count means elk are doing relatively well there.

It’s still a far cry from where the population was in 1994, when biologists counted 19,000 there. But in the following years, the animal’s number there plummeted, reaching a low point in 2013, when biologists counted 3,900. The decline coincided with the reintroduction of wolves to the region, which many blame for the drastic decline in elk numbers.

Loveless and other biologists caution against giving wolves too much credit for the decline, saying there were other factors besides the canine predators alone. But she did say the stabilization of the elk population in recent years could be a sign that some sort of balance has been struck in that predator-prey relationship. Since 2008, the number of wolves in the region has declined significantly. Meanwhile, elk numbers have inched upward.

“We do know wolf numbers are lower than what they were,” she said. “We might be at a point of better equilibrium between the wolves and the elk.”

But a decline in wolves doesn’t mean the elk have no pressure from predators. Smith said while wolves have declined, they haven’t disappeared and are likely still putting pressure on elk. And, he said, the animals still face dangers from cougars and both grizzly and black bears.

“This is quite interesting ... that with these predators elk are doing as well as they are,” Smith said.

Aside from a stable population, the biologists also noted a significant change in the way elk are using the land — more of them are migrating into Montana. Of the 5,349 elk that biologists saw during their counts earlier this month, more than 4,776 were outside of Yellowstone National Park — an increase of nearly 1,000 over 2016.

Elk migration routes out of Yellowstone National

Park(YNP)

It’s the highest number they’ve seen outside of the park during their winter counts since 2002, when there were more than twice as many elk. But this year is significant because the number seen outside of the park makes up about 89 percent of the herd, the largest portion they’ve seen migrate out of the park.

Records included in the report show that it was normal for 40 percent or more of the elk to spend winters inside the park. But in the last five years, that has been changing. Before 2017’s count, biologists recorded 77 percent of their elk sightings outside of Yellowstone for four consecutive years.

“Things have flip-flopped,” Smith said. “A lot more elk used to winter in Yellowstone.”

But biologists can’t point to a definitive reason why the elk are migrating out in greater number. Harsher winter conditions can push elk to lower elevations outside of the park, but Loveless said this winter hasn’t been especially tough on the animals. Smith said it could be because of threats from predator species and the lack of a late season elk hunt in the state hunting districts along the park’s border.

Either way, Loveless said it could be the source of conflicts between landowners there and the state’s wildlife agency.

“That’s going to be a concern for those folks that live up there,” Loveless said. “We’ll continue to work with those people with all the tools we have to reduce conflicts.”

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

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi27dbhvNzRAhUI34MKHTP8D1YQFggaMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nps.gov%2Fyell%2Flearn%2Fnature%2Fwolves.htm&usg=AFQjCNFrXYsX4FzqUgSZsrfs5SIYn_zQhQ&sig2=ige33hvyapAwEJumxJ2hgA&bvm=bv.145063293,d.amc

WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE 

Number in Yellowstone

• As of January 2016, there were at least 98 wolves in 10 packs living primarily in Yellowstone and 528 wolves living within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
• In general, wolf numbers within YNP have fluctuated between 83-104 wolves from 2009 to 2015.
• 

One of the most successful wildlife re-introductions in the USA is the Wild Turkey..........One of the reasons for our "wild gobbler's" rapid recovery throughout it's historic range is it's ability to live successfully in cold climates such as New York's Adirondack Mountain region.............."Despite the lack of feathers on its head, the turkey is able to hold its head close enough to its body for much of the day to reduce heat loss from the limited amount of exposed skin that occurs on its face and over its skull"....................... "A dense covering of plumage over the core of its body, along with a layer of fat, helps this bird effectively conserve body heat"..................."Should the turkey be unable to find its preferred foodstuffs including acorns, beechnuts and maple and ash keys during heavy winter snow and ice accumulation or should unrelenting wind and cold prevent this bird from leaving the shelter of its roost to search for food, it can quietly sit for days with its head tucked tightly against its body in order to wait until conditions become favorable again"

http://adirondackexplorer.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=f2786fbb7862339a0b90113d7&id=a5b9edce71&e=46b8d98c61

SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 2017

The Adirondack Wild Turkey in Winter

by Tom Kalinowski

There are only a few dozen species of birds capable of surviving the rigors of an Adirondack winter, and of these, the wild turkey is one that is more closely associated with the warmer and less snowy regions to our south than the boreal woodlands to the north.

While the turkey is traditionally viewed as one the most successful inhabitants of open, temperate forests, the cold-hardy nature of this bird and its resourceful and adaptable traits permit it to survive throughout the Park, even during winters when intense cold and deep snows are the rule for lengthy periods of time.

With its large, round body and small head, the wild turkey possesses a shape well designed for retaining heat. Despite the lack of feathers on its head, the turkey is able to hold its head close enough to its body for much of the day to reduce heat loss from the limited amount of exposed skin that occurs on its face and over its skull. A dense covering of plumage over the core of its body, along with a layer of fat, helps this bird effectively conserve body heat.

This bird is also known to restrict its movements to sections of forests that are sheltered from the prevailing winds, thereby limiting its exposure to intolerable chill factors. Additionally, the turkey tends to avoid naturally occurring cold pockets where frigid air can settle and create an arctic-like microclimate.

During winter in temperate woodlands, the turkey is well known for scratching through the shallow covering of snow in order to access acorns, hickory nuts and other sizeable seeds that have fallen to the forest floor in late autumn. Because of the highly nutritious contents of these items, the turkey is able to satisfy its demand for nourishment throughout this bleak season.

In the Adirondacks, the lack of oak and hickory trees, along with the absence of numerous other forms of vegetation that the turkey is known to depend on for food may seem to greatly restrict this bird’s ability to survive in our geographic region. Additionally, the deep snow pack that typically forms may likewise appear to be an insurmountable obstacle to the turkey’s success in the Park. However, the digestive system of the turkey has allowed it to completely forego its traditional sources of food and utilize items available in our deciduous woodlands.

During years with relatively light snow accumulations, the turkey is able to scratch down to the froze layer of leaf litter in order to access beechnuts, maple and ash keys, wild black cherries and other seeds that may be mixed in with this dead matter. The turkey also bites off the buds of various trees and shrubs and swallows these small, nutrient enriched twig fragments to gain nourishment.

Because of its preference for ingesting large, tough covered seeds, like acorns, the turkey has developed an enlarged gizzard at the upper end of its stomach which it uses to physically break down harden chunks of plant matter. The gizzard is forcefully contorted and pushes the contents into the stomach to mix it with digestive enzymes, initiating chemical action on the food. The mass is then pushed back into the gizzard for more pulverizing action. Most forms of plant matter swallowed by the turkey can eventually be broken down so that it can be utilized by this bird.

While this back and forth digestive action prepares the buds and small seeds ingested by the turkey for absorption into its system, the muscular expenditure of energy involved in this process also helps generate the internal warmth which the turkey needs to maintain a favorable body temperature in our climate.

Should the turkey be unable to find an adequate supply of food because of a coating of ice over the twig tips that it targets, or should unrelenting wind and cold prevent this bird from leaving the shelter of its roost to search for food, it can quietly sit for days with its head tucked tightly against its body in order to wait until conditions become favorable again.

The mild weather that the region has experienced this winter has been quite beneficial for the wild turkey, as it seems to prefer warmer and less snowy conditions. Should the weather turn more arctic-like for the remainder of the season, the turkey will adapt, as it is an extremely tough and cold-hardy member of the wildlife community here in the Adirondacks.

A version of this story first appeared in the Adirondack Almanack in 2012.

Tom Kalinowski is an avid outdoor enthusiast who taught field biology and ecology at Saranac Lake High School for 33 years. 

For those old enough to remember the 1959 Saturday morning tv show, NORTHWEST PASSAGE, the new original series entitled FRONTIER(produced by DISCOVERY CANADA) provides the same realistic and entertaining "peak inside the window" of the pre colonial eastern wilderness, zeroing in on the Fur Trading business in the Hudson/James Bay region of eastern/central Canada sometime during the period of the early 1600's through the dawn ot the 19th century............We follow engaging characters in a rugged environment-----English and American Fur Merchants along with the French Canadian and Native trappers who seek wealth, posessions and status while simsultaneously bringing on mass die-offs of wildlife and First Nations peoples...........What is not conveyed in this show or for that matter most historical accounts of North American Native Peoples is that they were complicit and eager participants in the wanton slaughter of animals for their hides...........And as brought out in the ground breaking KEEPERS OF THE GAME(1978 book), professor Calvin Martin points to pre-contact European spawned diseases(via both people and animals) that severed the age old cosmic relationship that Natives had with animals..........."With the sudden emergence of epizootic destruction, the scarcity of game, and the contagiousness of the animals, the contractual relationship(that the natives had spirtually had with the animals) was severed"..................."These events happened before Indians were aware of the possible connection of the white man"............. "Indians treated the new disasters as the start of a war with animals, a war led by the beavers(and followed by the entire carnivore and hoofed browser suite)"................. "The (then rapid)arrival of western trade goods, the musket and the steel trap, at precisely the same time as a war with the animals was treated as divine intervention, simultaneously giveing the natives additional tools to particpate in the fur trade and seemingly (material)rewards to kill as many animals as possible.................A true "EVE OF DESTRUCTION" occurred when Europeans came in contact with native cultures

TELEVISION

Review: ‘Frontier’ on Netflix Offers a Frothy Look at the Fur Trade

By NEIL GENZLINGERJAN. 19, 2017

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Pin
• Email
• More

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/arts/television/review-a-frothy-look-at-the-fur-trade-in-netflixs-frontier.html

“Frontier,” a lively Canadian import that goes up on Netflix on Friday, concerns the fur trade in barely settled areas of North America in the 1700s. As with many of these series, lawlessness prevails; violence is frequent and graphic

Jason Momoa in the new Netflix series “Frontier.”CreditDuncan de Young/Netflix

As the series opens, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the real trading concern created by royal charter in the 1600s to work a large chunk of North America, is seeing its monopoly eroded by interlopers. Lord Benton, played with deliciously ruthless haughtiness by Alun Armstrong, crosses the ocean to try to restore the company’s dominance.

He is especially concerned about Declan Harp (Jason Momoa, who made quite an impression as Khal Drogo in “Game of Thrones” and does so again here). Harp is a goliath who, as one of Benton’s aides puts it, is “half-Irish, half-native” and lives a shadowy existence in the woods, pestering the British with guerrilla tactics and hoping to form a trade alliance with the local Crees.

The series, a joint effort by Netflix and Discovery Canada, is refreshingly free of pretension, unlike some in the genre. Yes, there are serious themes to be drawn from it if you’re so inclined — it’s about greed, and empire-building, and exploitation of a land and its native inhabitants
-------------------------------------
FRONTIER IS A 21ST CENTURY FLAVORED NORTHWEST PASSAGE-as a little kid in 1959, was mesmurized by this Saturday morning tv series: 

Northwest Passage is a 26-episode half-hour adventure television series produced by Metro Goldwyn Mayer about Major Robert Rogers during the time of the French and Indian War (1756–1763). The show derived its title and the main characters Rogers, Towne, and Marriner from the 1937 novel of the same name by Kenneth Roberts, and from the 1940 MGM feature film based on the novel. The scope of the novel was much broader than that of the series, and the second half of the book included an historically based attempt by Rogers to find a water route through North America as a "passage" to the Pacific Ocean. This attempt, lending its name to the novel and used by Roberts as a metaphor for the questing human spirit, is referenced in the first episode.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/hudsons-bay-company/

THE HUDSON BAY COMPANY

Beginnings: 17th Century

In the 17th century, the fur trade emerged as a major commercial enterprise in North America due to European demand for felt hats made from beaver fur. French traders Médard Chouart des Groseilliers and Pierre-Esprit Radisson were the first to propose a trading company to reach the interior of the continent via Hudson Bay and gain easier access to the fur resources of the interior. After failing to obtain French support on their terms, they went to England in 1665 and interested Prince Rupert, cousin of Charles II. Rupert persuaded the king, several merchants and noblemen to back the venture. The first ships, the Eaglet and the Nonsuch, were dispatched on 3 June 1668 and the royal charter was proclaimed on 2 May 1670. The "Governor and Company of Adventurers" were granted wide powers, including exclusive trading rights in the territory traversed by rivers flowing into Hudson Bay. This vast region was named Rupert's Land.

Aboriginal Peoples

After trapping during the fall and winter when beaver pelts were of the highest quality, in the summer months, Aboriginal peoples travelled to these trading posts to barter furs for manufactured goods such as metal tools, guns, textiles and foodstuffs. The now-iconic point blanket was one such item bartered for furs. Often, Aboriginal traders were middlemen, bringing furs from communities farther inland. In order to standardize trade among posts, the HBC introduced the Made Beaver as the currency of the fur trade. All furs and manufactured items were valued according to this standard, which was the equivalent of one prime male beaver skin.

The fur trade had a great impact upon Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. As a result of their involvement in the fur trade, many abandoned their traditional lifestyles and economy, and became reliant on European manufactured goods and foodstuffs for survival. Many also moved beyond their traditional territory in search of fur-bearing animals and to obtain a better position in the trade. This movement of people and competition for European goods led to conflict among Aboriginal peoples. The arrival of Europeans also introduced diseases, such as smallpox, that devastated Aboriginal populations.

Hudson's Bay

 Company Ships

Prince of Wales and Eddystone bartering with the Inuit off the Upper Savage Islands, Hudson Strait, NWT. Watercolour by Robert Hood (courtesy Library and Archives Canada/C-40364).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hudson_bay_large.svg

Hudson Bay (Inuktitut: Kangiqsualuk ilua,^[2] French: baie d'Hudson) (sometimes called Hudson's Bay, usually historically) is a large body of saltwater in northeastern Canada with a surface area of 1,230,000 square kilometres (470,000 sq mi). It drains a very large area, about 3,861,400 square kilometres (1,490,900 sq mi),^[3] that includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, most of Manitoba, and southeastern Nunavut, and parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana. Hudson Bay's southern arm is called James Bay.

The Eastern Cree name for Hudson and James Bay is Wînipekw (Southern dialect) or Wînipâkw (Northern dialect), meaning muddy or brackish water. Lake Winnipeg is similarly named by the local Cree, as is the location for the city of Winnipeg.
-------------------------------------------


http://lawschool.unm.edu/nrj/volumes/23/1/24_ragsdale_keepers.pdf

KEEPERS OF THE GAME: INDIAN-ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THE FUR TRADE By CALVIN MARTIN Berkeley: The University of California Press. 1982 (softcover). 1978

Keepers of the Game discusses one myth and, in destroying it, does away with a second as well. The first of these myths is that of Indians as the first environmentalists. The second (and quite inconsistent) myth represents Indians as rapacious consumers, feathered Babbitts exchanging two pots for every beaver. The upper portion of the North American continent was, through the rivalry and greed of the Hudson Bay Company and the Northwest Company, almost stripped of fur-bearing wildlife.

 Historians have debated the reasons as to why Indians, who were the only significant trappers in the time and place, so avidly aided in the destruction of the animals. Conventional wisdom resolved the problem by reference to the market place: Indians wanted the fruits of western technology to such a degree that they were either willing or unwittingly able to destroy their environment to obtain the trinkets. Martin believes that this analysis is wrong because it fails to appreciate the culture of the Indians and, in fact, is ethnocentric in that it ascribes to Indians the same motives that would be ascribed to western man

Professor Martin's analysis begins with the decline of aboriginal population, and he concludes that something terrible happened to Indians long before we had previously thought-that many, if not most, Northeastern Indians were ravaged by disease before actual contact with Europeans. 3 He estimates that up to 90 percent of the original population may have perished. Contemporary studi~s indicate that many of the deaths were the result of animal-borne diseases and that fleas and ticks were early immigrants that caused major epizootic destruction of the native wildlife population.

 In addition to decimating wildlife, the diseases spread to the populace. This spreading of death by the animals was viewed by the Indians as in Professor Martin's phrase "a breach of contract." In his reconstruction of Indian cosmology he found that the Indians did not distinguish between the natural and the supernatural world. Within their cosmology, animals and Indians had a contract of mutual obligation and courtesy. Indians owed to the animals they hunted and killed specified formal duties, such as treating the remains in a certain way or refraining from killing certain species. In return, the animals, who knew that they were hunted, followed certain predictable behavior to ease the hunt and provided themselves for the sustenance of Indians if ritual was obeyed.

With the sudden emergence of epizootic destruction, the scarcity of game, and the contagiousness of the animals, the contractual relationship was severed. Professor Martin postulates that these events happened before Indians were aware of the possible connection of the white man. Indians treated the new disasters as the start of a war with animals, a war led by the beavers who had always coveted their land. The arrival of western trade goods, the musket and the steel trap, at precisely the same time as a war with the animals was treated as divine intervention.

The sincerity of the idea of war is poignantly expressed when the Indians tell the beavers that if they will just talk, the war will end, but the beavers remain silent. Contemporaneously with the war with the animals, other events occurred to further separate Indians from their culture. The new disease was uncurable by the shamans and their traditional method. In contrast, the French Jesuits promised redemption and cure, the trading companies imposed a system of hunting land tenure, and the introduction of firearms changed the balance of power between the tribes. The cumulative effect of these pressures was the abandonment of the existing social structure for the new order promised by the traders and the priests. A seemingly pleasant ideal existence was implicitly promised until the game disappeared. Like the Aztec's fatal mistake, the germ of destruction of Indian society was hidden in the society itself.

 The second myth that Professor Martin discusses, as almost an aside, is the rather common belief that Indians were the first environmentalists. This, too, he writes, is a result of ethnocentric behavior. For, just as the explanation for the participation in trapping is dependent upon an understanding of Indians' relationship with animals, so a grasp of their attitudes towards conservation is dependent upon their cosmology. He points out by quotation and example that many environmentalists believe that if western civilization could adopt the land ethic of the Indian, present society would be much more compatible with nature.

But he argues that it is impossible to adopt the ethic because the ethic is inextricably bound up in Indian cosmology. His explanation of how the Indian relationship with animals and the rest of nature is a complex and pervasive system points out the foolishness of an attempt to isolate out the attractive portions of their beliefs. Sadly, even if it were possible, we the heirs of a different cosmology would not listen anyway. Ironically, to make Indians projections of our ideals of perfection is, in essence, to dehumanize them one more time.