|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 30, 2009 6:57:02 GMT -6
The Comanches/Kiowa went to war in 1874 (The Red River War aka The BUFFALO War) in response to White Market hunters killing off buffalo on land belonging to those Indians.
Apparently the majority of buffalos were all killed within a fairly close distance to White towns leaving the remaining hunters to venture onto Indian lands that were suppose to be protected.
Gen. Pope who was in command of the division encouraged hunters to go to Comanche territory to finish off the buffalo.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 30, 2009 7:01:19 GMT -6
The buffalo is closely related to the cow. They can breed and produce offspring that are capable of breeding. In Arizona all the buffalo are genetically part cattle and for that reason the Park Service wants them eliminated.
The buffalo are meaner but longhorns weren't the most friendly animals either. There were vehicles with the windshields and doors taken out by longhorns at Fort Niobrara, Nebraska, that I saw when I worked at the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and assisted at Fort Niobrara in branding Longhorns and auctioning buffalo.
In Arizona buffalo are considered livestock and can be sold unlike all other big game species. I would guess that is common in several states including the auction in Nebraska that I worked at Fort Niobrara a US Fish and Wildlife facility.
Buffalo can be herded like cattle most of the time and South Dakota has an annual event but they still are unpredictable and these herdings take place in enclosed areas.
Cowboys don't like them because:
They are faster than a horse
They can maneuver quicker than a horse
They can kill a horse and/or rider if they decide to
Most important you can't rope them without risking closing their windpipe and killing them
With all the concern for cholesterol buffalo meat has attracted a small market. I wonder how much different it would be from range fed only beef.
Two former Arizona officers worked for Ted Turner in New Mexico managing ranches , the Armendaris Ranch and the Ladder Ranch near Truth or Consequences, that have buffalo. Chic Wayne, Ladder Ranch, has retired but Tom Waddell, Armendaris Ranch, still works there. Chic told me about a bull hooking a quad and throwing the rider and quad in the air over 15 feet high. Ted Turner owns the largest buffalo herd in the U.S. at approximately 45,000.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 30, 2009 7:21:58 GMT -6
A little newspaper piece from Harper's Magazine that is quite interesting.
Harper's Magazine (12th December, 1874)
The vast plains west of the Missouri River are covered with the decaying bones of thousands of slain buffaloes. Most of them have been slaughtered for the hide by professional hunters, while many have fallen victims to the sportsmen’s rage for killing merely for the sake of killing. These people take neither hide nor flesh, but leave the whole carcass to decay and furnish food for the natural scavengers of the plains.
Our front-page illustration represents a party of professional hunters, numbering six or eight, who have come upon a large herd of buffaloes. The first shot brings down a splendid animal, wounded purposely in a manner not to kill but to make him "pump blood," that is to say, to bleed profusely. Others of the herd gather around their wounded comrade, and appear to be too much stupefied to avoid danger by flight. The hunters kill as many as they can, until the survivors at last take fright and gallop off.
Then the "stripping" begins. The hides are taken off with great skill and wonderful quickness, loaded on a wagon, as shown in the background of the picture, and carried to the hunters’ camp. Our artists spoke with the hunters on the plains who boasted of having killed two thousand head of buffalo apiece in one season. At this rate of slaughter, the buffalo must soon become extinct. Already there is a sensible diminution of the great herds on the plains, and from many places where they were once numerous they have disappeared altogether. Some of the railroads running far out into the prairies have regular trains for parties of amateur hunters, who fire upon their victims from the car windows. Thousands of buffalo were killed in this manner, besides other kinds of wild game, and their carcasses left to decay on the ground along the line of the railroad.
The indiscriminate slaughter of the buffalo has brought many evils in its train. Among other bad consequences it has been the direct occasion of many Indian wars. Deprived of one of their chief means of subsistence through the agency of white men, the tribes naturally take revenge by making raids on white settlements and carrying off stock, if they do not murder the settlers.
________________
Even a popular publication in those days was alarmed at the destruction of the buffalo and it's ramifications not only on Indians but instigating Indian retaliation.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 30, 2009 8:15:37 GMT -6
<With all the concern for cholesterol buffalo meat has attracted a small market. I wonder how much different it would be from range fed only beef>
Not sure . . . maybe somewhat leaner because of not being confined and having to use their muscles to get around rather than be confined in factory farms and fed unnatural fat-producing foods in addition to all the steroids, hormones & growth stimulators.
I've had buffalo and it's quite good . . . but you need to be careful not to overcook it, like most wild game there's a knack to it. It's not quite as gamey as deer.
In fact there are a number of buffalo farms in my area. I've seen buffalo in Montana and on the "farm". Either way they are quite impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jun 30, 2009 10:03:33 GMT -6
Ranger,
Would you consider the modern American bison to be more properly described as semi-domesticated, rather than wild? I am aware that modern buffalo DNA is ‘polluted’ or ‘diluted’ with the genes of domesticated cattle. I was not aware that there were any of the species remaining that were not of mixed breed or a hybrid.
Also, about two years ago, I read the synopsis of a study of American buffalo, (done not very long ago, within the last fifteen years, perhaps) which theorized that the living examples of buffalo around today, in zoos and even those roaming semi-freely, have become somewhat smaller, on average, than their ancestors of the 19th Century. Considerably smaller, as a matter of fact.
As I recall, comparisons were made between the measurements from living specimens, and old photos, the measurements of surviving skulls, mounted trophy examples, miscellaneous bones and the like dating to the 19th Century. Any ideas on that, or knowledge of a like study?
M
|
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jun 30, 2009 10:05:12 GMT -6
Crzhrs,
I’ve tried buffalo too. A burger that struck me as rather dry. Which was fine, because it took more beer to wash it down. Must’a been a bit over cooked as you pointed out. Also, bit more expensive than the standard burger the restaurant sold as well.
Yeah, beef cattle today are ‘fattened up’ at the last minute, by a number of means before slaughter and processing. Supposedly the additional fat content of the meat enhances the flavor, which is probably true, but since meat is sold by the pound there’s more purpose behind it than simply producing a tastier product.
Ever tried ‘free range’ beef? No enhancing of the meat by artificial means supposedly goes on. I have heard about it, but have not had an opportunity to try it.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Jun 30, 2009 10:13:15 GMT -6
Even a popular publication in those days was alarmed at the destruction of the buffalo and it's ramifications not only on Indians but instigating Indian retaliation. That is a good example of the "peaceniks" of the day...mostly New Englanders that didn't have to live with Indians or buffalo, anymore...their own ancestors had already eradicated the Indians and any dangerous/undesirable wild animals in that region of the United States. I doubt the above attitude was shared by many western Americans, eh? This article was just another shot in the great political and philosophical war going on in Washington DC at the time. Grant's "Peace Policy" that fell apart about this time is evidence of that. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 30, 2009 11:02:08 GMT -6
<That is a good example of the "peaceniks" of the day>
Harper's was the most successful and popular magazine of it's day with noted writers (T. Roosevelt wrote for them and he loved Custer) & illustrators. And it was published in New York . . . not anywhere in New England.
Just because it told the truth doesn't make it a "peacenik" publication.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 30, 2009 11:07:16 GMT -6
A little more on present buffalo:
The current American Bison population is estimated at 350,000. Most current herds, however are genetically polluted or partly crossbred with cattle. Today there are only four genetically unmixed herds and only one that is also free of brucellosis: it roams Wind Cave National Park. A founder population of 16 animals from the Wind Cave herd was established in Montana in 2005 by the American Prairie Foundation. The herd now numbers near 100 and roams a 14,000-acre grassland expanse on American Prairie Reserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 30, 2009 16:49:38 GMT -6
brokensword : i've nothing to add to your long post earlier, 100% agreeing on that one. I just had to correct your time span for at least 50 years for the horse and plains arrival of the sioux (and I think the year will be lowered again as it was a habit of making it too recent in later books) If I have some kinda of language barrier with some here it is on purpose as I will never agree with THEM  and Conz will never agree with anyone anyway. Plus I write as fast as I think, never re-read and see after if I counted coups some coups on the ol' soldiers around here, just like the indians, no strategy! What I generally don't like (allthough I agree with some facts) it is a habit overhere to justify the -killing of indians -killing of buffalo -the swindling and treacherous land stealing by unkept treaties .....the long sad & bad story by saying indians did the same plus they should shut up cause they got their horses, their pride, through us (whiwh is wrong it was from the spanish and they did not like particularly those protestant white whites. (I resume..). I don't know why in 2009 we still have to prove that white hunters finished the buffalo. It is proven : period. Off course, drouth, indian hunting, cattle and horse grazing added to it, but the extermination came 90% from the white hunters, professionals for a living and amateurs for fun. In 1870 there were lots of large herds roaming still, indians were locked up and 10 year later all bison was gone. The indians weren't there anymore to be the suspect! Anyway they did not have enough squaws to tann the hides. 1 squaw could do 10-20 hides working her ass off; The whites just dropped them at loads at professional plants, get the picture? Indians could not do it , were not available and could not produce them. As for AZ ranger I admire your job, you can have mine, I design and produce bicycles! Ok I'm jealous! I would love to see a guy like Ted turner decide hey you from the Rez wanna hunt the ol' way, here's my herd, manage it ;D. There is over 200.000 on commercial beef ranches and less in national parks. Those whites always know how to make a profit out of a downer! brokensword not only the buffalo got smaller, the indian too : they were the biggest men in the world on the plains, due to good life and good food (today it is the Dutch = me) . Get those buffalo some exercice and hunt them the old way on horseback AZ, 1 arrow will do for 2 if you have SB skills! |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 30, 2009 16:56:49 GMT -6
Wolfie wrote (midst a long, worthwhile post) this: "They had some great men and warriors but they were as naive as a people can be." One day you fight Miles, next day you hcout/fight your own people. Whites did never do that." Really? Two examples pop immediately to mind: The "Galvanized Yankees" in the Civil War and Russian Liberation Army fighting for Germany late in WWII. Billy Billy I'm not talking arikara vs sioux or pawnee vs cheyenne Cheyenne enlisted to scout .... cheyenne. Their own kin. oglala to kill or round up hunkpapa. apache to kill well you know who. sac and fox helped turn in s&f yanktonai murdered sitting bull and proud of it. etc the list is too long & sad. if there is 1 subject i can't stand the omerta on indians wrongs, the internal treachery. still going on in my view; they agree on nothing. anyway I don't get it what you say about the russians. they were all united in my history books, no russians to scout against russians! and the few dutch collaborators we hung em all! on the rez they have to live with them. |
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Jun 30, 2009 17:08:08 GMT -6
The bison had to go every bit as much as the Indian had to give up their freedom in order to civilize this land, right?We do have commercial buffalo meat today, of course, but they are not nearly as efficient as cattle are at producing meat. Civilization depends upon efficiency, of course.Clair conz you hit the bottom once again  . nazis were also very efficient, so was napoleon on the battlefield, the whale industry. Civilisation as you call it is ugly and beauty is not always efficiency. Anyway when do we start the BODY COUNT!!!  Billy I propose the time span 1850-1880 for the LBH board count of indians killed by indians
VS
indians killed by whitesi leave out prior 1850 as the records are bad and scarce and there are loads of tribes missing not even having the time to record their own extermination (paiutes). I know you wish to start at 0 BC but that ain't fair, in exchange i propose to please you guys and to leave out the 80% loss by smallpox on the east missouri and the 40% estaimted west lmissouri and a couple of million to the east and south, a couple of billion bonus just to stick to the the plains period we are all so keen off... Conz you can start, I knw you have your list : we include women and children hey  If you can prove your point I will make a statue of you and put in on my desk. |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 30, 2009 19:50:26 GMT -6
Ranger, Would you consider the modern American bison to be more properly described as semi-domesticated, rather than wild? I am aware that modern buffalo DNA is ‘polluted’ or ‘diluted’ with the genes of domesticated cattle. I was not aware that there were any of the species remaining that were not of mixed breed or a hybrid. Also, about two years ago, I read the synopsis of a study of American buffalo, (done not very long ago, within the last fifteen years, perhaps) which theorized that the living examples of buffalo around today, in zoos and even those roaming semi-freely, have become somewhat smaller, on average, than their ancestors of the 19th Century. Considerably smaller, as a matter of fact. As I recall, comparisons were made between the measurements from living specimens, and old photos, the measurements of surviving skulls, mounted trophy examples, miscellaneous bones and the like dating to the 19th Century. Any ideas on that, or knowledge of a like study? M Michael I think semi-domestic is appropriate. Hybrid for the genetics of most is also appropriate. There were two subspecies of buffalo and the wood buffalo was almost extinct in the U.S. It was the larger of the two subspecies the other being the plains subspecies. Seem theories are these are the buffalo that were run off cliffs by the Indians. There are some genetically pure and we purchased three bulls from Montana to add those genes to our population. I believe some wood buffalo were discovered in Canada and some may be in Yellowstone. I am not sure of the genetic purity but it does exist in some of the plains buffalo. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 1, 2009 0:11:16 GMT -6
Wolfie, I don't know how I got involved in your message in response to Conz but FYI, my totals for regular army soldiers killed by Indians from 1848-1890 so far is 1,195. That is out of 11,355 deaths of regular army personnel for the same time frame.
Likely there are a few duplications in the total but they should not amount to more than 30-40.
As far as Indians killed by whites, only God and their relatives know. I would love to be able to track down the names of Indians killed or who died of disease during those years, but so far, I haven't obtained a reliable source. I have been thinking of going to Haskell College over in Lawrence to see if they had some insight into a methodology.
Billy
|
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jul 1, 2009 0:18:19 GMT -6
By the way, in answer to something I read from Horse regarding blankets infected with smallpox; that was only in a letter. No evidence exists that it was ever put into practice. Of course, what matter when some tribes used arrows dipped in rattlesnake venom and rotten meat.
Billy
|
|
and Conz will never agree with anyone anyway. Plus I write as fast as I think, never re-read and see after if I counted coups some coups on the ol' soldiers around here, just like the indians, no strategy!
. nazis were also very efficient, so was napoleon on the battlefield, the whale industry.
