What if...

[HighUintas]

. There seems to be a pretty widely accepted conservation ethic historically recognized in native american cultures of taking only what was needed and living in harmony with the land. I'm not real sure what year that started but it seems pretty safe to bet it was pre-yellowstone.

Only taking what was needed? The idea of the natives living in harmony with the land and taking from it minimally is a myth.

 

[Btaylor]

Only taking what was needed? The idea of the natives living in harmony with the land and taking from it minimally is a myth.

So the natives shot out the game populations and the settlers had to conserve and rebuild those populations before they could then start market hunting them and shooting them to extinction or close to it before establishing the foundations of current day conservation and wildlife management?

 

[cuerro viejo]

There are no innocent, you can’t drive a herd off a cliff and claim you only took what you needed.

A lot of theories that Native Animals population actually exploded after Spanish released a few diseases that whipped out millions of People , pre-colonial contact…..

 

[Wyobohunter]

Yellowstone was established in what 1872? That's more than a hundred by a good bit. And that is only recognizing conservation established by white folks that showed up here uninvited. There seems to be a pretty widely accepted conservation ethic historically recognized in native american cultures of taking only what was needed and living in harmony with the land. I'm not real sure what year that started but it seems pretty safe to bet it was pre-yellowstone.

No dog in this but I’ll say what I see…

Regarding Yellowstone. The person did say “hundreds” not “over one hundred”. Though I’ll admit it’s a little pedantic… even for me.

We can’t really use “native American cultures” for that purpose in that way. I’d wager that the vast majority did no harm. Still others caused damage. Some indigenous Californians hunted a species of hummingbird to extinction because it was considered a delicacy. Many bird species were hunted to local extinction. Some northeastern tribes used destructive soil management techniques and caused harmful erosion through agriculture. I’m not pointing those out to bag on the indigenous. I’m just saying if we’re to use them as an example it should be taken case by case. On the whole modern society is obviously much more destructive; especially post industrial revolution. Indigenous people did some local harm. We aren’t screwing around. We go after the earths climate.

 

[displacedtexan]

Yellowstone was established in what 1872? That's more than a hundred by a good bit. And that is only recognizing conservation established by white folks that showed up here uninvited. There seems to be a pretty widely accepted conservation ethic historically recognized in native american cultures of taking only what was needed and living in harmony with the land. I'm not real sure what year that started but it seems pretty safe to bet it was pre-yellowstone.

That's well short of hundreds, and happened concurrently with the bison being hunted nearly to extinction. And before whitetail deer, duck, goose and turkey populations being decimated.

I'll agree that I'm splitting hairs but saying that's not "hundreds" only "over a hundred" but I'm looking at a time frame of hundreds of years into the future... We're drastically different in our culture and activities, which I'm certain would be unfamiliar and likely puzzling to someone from hundreds of years ago.

Which led me to the question "why?"

 

[Btaylor]

No dog in this but I’ll say what I see…

Regarding Yellowstone. The person did say “hundreds” not “over one hundred”. Though I’ll admit it’s a little pedantic… even for me.

We can’t really use “native American cultures” for that purpose in that way. I’d wager that the vast majority did no harm. Still others not so much. Some indigenous Californians hunted a species of hummingbird to extinction because it was considered a delicacy. Many bird species were hunted to local extinction. Some northeastern tribes used destructive soil management techniques and caused harmful erosion through agriculture. I’m not pointing those out to bag on the indigenous. Im just saying if we’re to use them as an example it should be taken case by case. On the whole modern society is obviously much more destructive. Especially post industrial revolution. Indigenous people did some local harm. We aren’t screwing around. We go after the earths climate.

I do not disagree and it sort of points to my point. Today there are groups of people that are very much conservation minded and there are groups that simply have a let me get mine attitude. Those 2 groups of thought can be traced back a long freaking time.

 

[Wyobohunter]

I do not disagree and it sort of points to my point. Today there are groups of people that are very much conservation minded and there are groups that simply have a let me get mine attitude. Those 2 groups of thought can be traced back a long freaking time.

I concede that point. Modern humans should also be looked as case by case and some of our ideas about conservation go back a very long time.

 

[KurtR]

This is why i want to conserve for hundreds of years.

 

[Btaylor]

I'll agree that I'm splitting hairs but saying that's not "hundreds" only "over a hundred" but I'm looking at a time frame of hundreds of years into the future... We're drastically different in our culture and activities, which I'm certain would be unfamiliar and likely puzzling to someone from hundreds of years ago.

Which led me to the question "why?"

So going back to your why question, the principle of stewardship was taught to me from a very early age and it is something that has been important for most of my life. Based on the premise of your question it may seem even more strange to you to know that I have no children thus no direct linage to benefit from any efforts I make towards stewardship. I used to think it was something that hunters or people in general matured into but that simply is not the case. There are some that do but there are plenty that do not. I think for a good many there is just something deep rooted that drives the connection to the land and wildlife. I suspect it ties back to the hunter/gatherer discussion Donnie Vincent has so eloquently covered in that hunting is in our DNA. Part of why I am not a fan of zoo's is because you can see how life in captivity changes the animal. Not conserving our public lands and waters and not maintaining the traditions of hunting and fishing in my mind is building the cage for future generations. The only legacy I have to leave is to not participate in that construction.

 

[Wyobohunter]

So going back to your why question, the principle of stewardship was taught to me from a very early age and it is something that has been important for most of my life. Based on the premise of your question it may seem even more strange to you to know that I have no children thus no direct linage to benefit from any efforts I make towards stewardship. I used to think it was something that hunters or people in general matured into but that simply is not the case. There are some that do but there are plenty that do not. I think for a good many there is just something deep rooted that drives the connection to the land and wildlife. I suspect it ties back to the hunter/gatherer discussion Donnie Vincent has so eloquently covered in that hunting is in our DNA. Part of why I am not a fan of zoo's is because you can see how life in captivity changes the animal. Not conserving our public lands and waters and not maintaining the traditions of hunting and fishing in my mind is building the cage for future generations. The only legacy I have to leave is to not participate in that construction.

Well said!

 

[displacedtexan]

So going back to your why question, the principle of stewardship was taught to me from a very early age and it is something that has been important for most of my life. Based on the premise of your question it may seem even more strange to you to know that I have no children thus no direct linage to benefit from any efforts I make towards stewardship. I used to think it was something that hunters or people in general matured into but that simply is not the case. There are some that do but there are plenty that do not. I think for a good many there is just something deep rooted that drives the connection to the land and wildlife. I suspect it ties back to the hunter/gatherer discussion Donnie Vincent has so eloquently covered in that hunting is in our DNA. Part of why I am not a fan of zoo's is because you can see how life in captivity changes the animal. Not conserving our public lands and waters and not maintaining the traditions of hunting and fishing in my mind is building the cage for future generations. The only legacy I have to leave is to not participate in that construction.

I like that.

I don't necessarily 100% agree with all of it, but I do 100% agree with the value of being a good steward of the land.

Hunting is definitely not the only way to encourage that (see Yellowstone and the rest of the National Park system), but it can definitely play a very valuable role in it.

 

[pk_]

I quit reading when you brought up hunting rights and conservation practices being put into place hundreds of years ago.

Because that's flat out wrong.

Perhaps you should read more.

P.S. I used to think Texans got a bad rap on this forum. Way to live up to it.

Have a wonderful life.

 

[HighUintas]

As to the OP, yes I care to preserve our hunting and outdoor traditions and remaining wilderness for future generations, not just for my daughter and my grandchildren if I end up having grandchildren, but for the poor souls who are on this earth 100-200 years from now with a population that is potentially beyond our comprehension and the ever more likely caged existence they'll have to survive.

At some point, our modern healthcare and way of life that is influencing human evolution may eliminate humans' inherent need to connect with the natural world in a very natural way. But for now, it remains and it's obvious that it is effective medicine to many people. I can go sit in the woods for hours, watching birds, leaves, etc without hunting, and be content. I wouldn't have ever been introduced to that kind of peace without hunting. I hope that people continue to have the right and choose to hunt for eternity. It will be good medicine for the folk that live 200 years from now.

 

[HighUintas]

So the natives shot out the game populations and the settlers had to conserve and rebuild those populations before they could then start market hunting them and shooting them to extinction or close to it before establishing the foundations of current day conservation and wildlife management?

Well I should have been more specific. There is a myth that all natives groups in NA lived harmoniously with the earth and didn't take more than needed. They lived more harmoniously with the Earth than Europeans and all the NA settlers. But, their population was much much lower, they didn't have a goal to exterminate the buffalo to force their enemies into submission (they would have hurt themselves also), and their culture/way of life didn't promote advances in tools/technology rapidly like other parts of the world so they didn't get to the point of huge extractions from the Earth for goods.

No dog in this but I’ll say what I see…

Regarding Yellowstone. The person did say “hundreds” not “over one hundred”. Though I’ll admit it’s a little pedantic… even for me.

We can’t really use “native American cultures” for that purpose in that way. I’d wager that the vast majority did no harm. Still others caused damage. Some indigenous Californians hunted a species of hummingbird to extinction because it was considered a delicacy. Many bird species were hunted to local extinction. Some northeastern tribes used destructive soil management techniques and caused harmful erosion through agriculture. I’m not pointing those out to bag on the indigenous. I’m just saying if we’re to use them as an example it should be taken case by case. On the whole modern society is obviously much more destructive; especially post industrial revolution. Indigenous people did some local harm. We aren’t screwing around. We go after the earths climate.

Yes, it should be considered on a case by case basis. And we take it to 11.

 

[displacedtexan]

As to the OP, yes I care to preserve our hunting and outdoor traditions and remaining wilderness for future generations, not just for my daughter and my grandchildren if I end up having grandchildren, but for the poor souls who are on this earth 100-200 years from now with a population that is potentially beyond our comprehension and the ever more likely caged existence they'll have to survive.

At some point, our modern healthcare and way of life that is influencing human evolution may eliminate humans' inherent need to connect with the natural world in a very natural way. But for now, it remains and it's obvious that it is effective medicine to many people. I can go sit in the woods for hours, watching birds, leaves, etc without hunting, and be content. I wouldn't have ever been introduced to that kind of peace without hunting. I hope that people continue to have the right and choose to hunt for eternity. It will be good medicine for the folk that live 200 years from now.

That's exactly the question...

If they see no value, why would it bother you?

 

[HighUintas]

That's exactly the question...

If they see no value, why would it bother you?

If the future human was in no way capable of enjoying time spent in nature, either passively or actively, like hunting or throwing bread to a duck at the city pond or even enjoying a nice sunset, that human would be completely unrelatable to me and might as well be an alien. That "human would truly no longer care about earth and how much they screw it up. In my opinion, if the human race changes to that, we've failed and it will mean we've fully destroyed earth and everything that was good about. The place is still beautiful and must have been heaven before humans got a little too smart.

 

[displacedtexan]

If the future human was in no way capable of enjoying time spent in nature, either passively or actively, like hunting or throwing bread to a duck at the city pond or even enjoying a nice sunset, that human would be completely unrelatable to me and might as well be an alien. That "human would truly no longer care about earth and how much they screw it up. In my opinion, if the human race changes to that, we've failed and it will mean we've fully destroyed earth and everything that was good about. The place is still beautiful and must have been heaven before humans got a little too smart.

I agree that if they enjoyed neither hunting, or feeding the ducks, or the sunset... They would be alien to me.

But if they enjoyed two of the three... And I think ducks are jerks.