Has wildlife suffered serious declines in population????

[redhawk]

That was my statement and I am sure there are a few places I have said I can't prove it.

Then if you have no proof, how could you offer it as an argument?

Guess we might have to go with neither. What is "ALOT" a reference in comparison to?

Webster defines "lot" as:a considerable quantity or extent <a lot of money> <lots of friends>

Note that it does not reference "compared to".

So lets say it's a "considerable quantity

Again what are the indians of the time comparing it to?
Was it written history that passed it down? Or was it oral.
Tell some one at work a story and once its been passed thru a few people see if it is the same.

Difference being we're talking about Indians, not Caucasian People. Oral history was accurate.

Not sure how long Lewis and CLark were in the USA before their trip west.
What are they comparing "An Abundance" to?

Better read your history, they were born here so they were here all their lives.

And once again, an abundance does not need to be a comparison. but obviously them meant much more then what you claimed was here.


So lets see. Anyone from Europe would not be credible because since Europe had fewer animals (And just out of curiosity, what do you base that on? Do you have anything that tells how many or how few animals there were in Europe at that time? or is that just another out of the hat statement?) he wouldn't know what an abundance of.

Your not sure about Lewis and Clark's accuracy because you don't know how long that had "been here". These are highly educated and skilled people who kept meticulous journals and recorded scientific data, and you question if they would know what "an abundance" is? That about as ludicrous a theory as I've ever heard.

Actually the one thing that is apparent is that you have a propensity for sometimes pulling "facts" out of mid air, with absolutely nothing to base them on.

Along with the inability to accept written or historical references with some excuse or another to avoid the notion that you are wrong.

Since from debating with you on a regular basis here, it is very obvious to me that you have a high level of intelligence and often have good sound data to base your argument on, it really pains me to see this other side which can do nothing except affect your credibility. Although are relationship here is often adversarial because of our beliefs, I really do have a lot of respect for you. That's why I really hate to see you making these arguments you have put forth.

Hawk

[Connie Bear Orion]

Webster defines "lot" as:a considerable quantity or extent <a lot of money> <lots of friends>

Note that it does not reference "compared to".

So lets say it's a "considerable quantity

All I am saying is ALOT to one is a few to others.

Difference being we're talking about Indians, not Caucasian People. Oral history was accurate.

How can you be sure.
In any group things change over multiple tellings.

Better read your history, they were born here so they were here all their lives.

And once again, an abundance does not need to be a comparison. but obviously them meant much more then what you claimed was here.

So lets see. Anyone from Europe would not be credible because since Europe had fewer animals (And just out of curiosity, what do you base that on? Do you have anything that tells how many or how few animals there were in Europe at that time? or is that just another out of the hat statement?) he wouldn't know what an abundance of.

As I have said before.
To a person that sees 10 deer on a regular basis, thats not alot or an abundance, 20 might be.
To a person who never sees deer thats alot.
Its all based on perspective.

Your not sure about Lewis and Clark's accuracy because you don't know how long that had "been here". These are highly educated and skilled people who kept meticulous journals and recorded scientific data, and you question if they would know what "an abundance" is? That about as ludicrous a theory as I've ever heard.

Why is that ludicruos?
Did I say they were not accurate?
I believe basically I said I did not know because I did not know their perspective.
That is not ludicruos that is admitting I did not know.

Actually the one thing that is apparent is that you have a propensity for sometimes pulling "facts" out of mid air, with absolutely nothing to base them on.

So one fact is a propensity????
I guess its again a matter of perspective.

Along with the inability to accept written or historical references with some excuse or another to avoid the notion that you are wrong.

Anyone could have written anything. Who exactly was the person?
What were they?
What motive did they have?

I learned when I was young people slant what they have to say sometimes.

The history that is taught and told is not always 100% true.
When I was in school they taught about the revolutionary war and how John Paul Jones was a great hero.
But they left out he was a Pirate.
They slanted the story left out facts.
John Hancock was a smuggler.
Bet you never learned that in history in school.

And how about one that you might personally resent when they taught it to you in school.
Was the history involving the indians in this country so accurate the way it was taught to you in school?
Or was it slanted to make it look alright that the Causasian settlers were justified in their killing, poisoning or evicting them.

I will go with the side that says "That history book was slanted."

Since from debating with you on a regular basis here, it is very obvious to me that you have a high level of intelligence and often have good sound data to base your argument on, it really pains me to see this other side which can do nothing except affect your credibility. Although are relationship here is often adversarial because of our beliefs, I really do have a lot of respect for you. That's why I really hate to see you making these arguments you have put forth.

Hawk

Your not a bad guy yourself.
Even if we don't agree most of the.

We do agree sometimes.

This is just probably never gonna be one of them.

[redhawk]

ays 100% true.
When I was in school they taught about the revolutionary war and how John Paul Jones was a great hero.
But they left out he was a Pirate.
They slanted the story left out facts.
John Hancock was a smuggler.
Bet you never learned that in history in school.

And how about one that you might personally resent when they taught it to you in school.
Was the history involving the indians in this country so accurate the way it was taught to you in school?
Or was it slanted to make it look alright that the Causasian settlers were justified in their killing, poisoning or evicting them.

I will go with the side that says "That history book was slanted."

Seems to me there's a difference. In the cases you cite, they felt they had a reason to alter the perspective.

What possible reason would there be way back then to fudge the numbers on game populations?

I agree there is a lot of "fudging" today, but because there are two sides trying to get leverage, environmentalists and hunters. Sp both sides fudge the numbers to their advantage. This thread is a perfect example.

[redhawk]

How can you be sure.
In any group things change over multiple tellings.

I meant to comment on this too.

First of all, how many "Groups" have you had contact with to make that statement? Do you have anything that bears that out as far as North American Indians? or Maori, how about tribal Africans? Australian Aborigines?

I have done a lot of research on Indian Languages and oral histories. I can tell you first hand that oral histories were very accurate and were passed on for generations with not even a word being changed. I have seen stories, narrated by people three and four generations apart, to historians and they are exactly identical.

It's difficult to explain with appearing prejudice or racist, or without appearing that I am trying to insult other races, especially Euro-Caucasians. However, North American Indigenous People are taught to "Listen" and to pay attention to not only what is said, but exactly how it is said. And to think about what has been said for at least a minute without replying (unfortunately, i never acquired that habit). For whatever reason, Indians listened better then Euro-Caucasians.

Perhaps the realization that it was important that our oral histories be accurate to carry on our traditions and way of life. Perhaps it was to try to avoid conflicts because our most important asset was our people.

Anyway, I have all the faith in the world in the oral histories of Indigenous People. I have found the Blackfella's (Australian Aborigines) and the Maori of New Zealand
to also be good listeners and accurate in their repetition of what they have been told.

So the game of "gossip" would not be entertaining with indigenous peoples.

Hawk

[Connie Bear Orion]

Seems to me there's a difference. In the cases you cite, they felt they had a reason to alter the perspective.

What possible reason would there be way back then to fudge the numbers on game populations?

I agree there is a lot of "fudging" today, but because there are two sides trying to get leverage, environmentalists and hunters. Sp both sides fudge the numbers to their advantage. This thread is a perfect example.

Yup. They did have a reason.
But what was it?

That is why I say its about perspective.
But somethings are also about agenda.

So i tend to question things that are not straight forward and easy to see.

There is no reason for them to fudge the game population numbers.
Thats purely persepctive.

A comparison I have given before.
I have seen what had to be over 200 turkeys in a field.
That was alot. 20 is what I see every morning in my backyard.
But to some 20 is alot.
There is no agenda, no slant.
Its all perspective.

I don't beleive Lewis and Clark, or the guy from the netherlands that someone mentioned previously, lied.
I don't believe they have an agenda.

I caution to look beyond the face of things.

Blame my public school education and inaccuracies in the history books, if you want.

I meant to comment on this too.

First of all, how many "Groups" have you had contact with to make that statement? Do you have anything that bears that out as far as North American Indians? or Maori, how about tribal Africans? Australian Aborigines?

I have done a lot of research on Indian Languages and oral histories. I can tell you first hand that oral histories were very accurate and were passed on for generations with not even a word being changed. I have seen stories, narrated by people three and four generations apart, to historians and they are exactly identical.

It's difficult to explain with appearing prejudice or racist, or without appearing that I am trying to insult other races, especially Euro-Caucasians. However, North American Indigenous People are taught to "Listen" and to pay attention to not only what is said, but exactly how it is said. And to think about what has been said for at least a minute without replying (unfortunately, i never acquired that habit). For whatever reason, Indians listened better then Euro-Caucasians.

Perhaps the realization that it was important that our oral histories be accurate to carry on our traditions and way of life. Perhaps it was to try to avoid conflicts because our most important asset was our people.

Anyway, I have all the faith in the world in the oral histories of Indigenous People. I have found the Blackfella's (Australian Aborigines) and the Maori of New Zealand
to also be good listeners and accurate in their repetition of what they have been told.

So the game of "gossip" would not be entertaining with indigenous peoples.

Hawk

I see the general pattern of people.
Tell a story to someone see how long before you hear it again and how inaccurate the story is.

Well then that puts people who can tell a story exactly over again, in a very small minority.

One I have yet to see in action.

".......to "Listen" and to pay attention to not only what is said, but exactly how it is said. And to think about what has been said for at least a minute without replying (unfortunately, i never acquired that habit). "

Don't worry you are not in the minority I admit to having such trouble too.