Passenger pigeons
Discussion
According to this, the traditional view of the extinction of the passenger pigeon is an oversimplification. It seems that the vast flocks of the 19th century were 'unsustainable' (dread word) even without hunting.
https://www.humanprogress.org/the-rousseauian-myth...
https://www.humanprogress.org/the-rousseauian-myth...
Dr Jekyll said:
According to this, the traditional view of the extinction of the passenger pigeon is an oversimplification. It seems that the vast flocks of the 19th century were 'unsustainable' (dread word) even without hunting.
https://www.humanprogress.org/the-rousseauian-myth...
A fact or two would have been a useful additional ingredient in that article.https://www.humanprogress.org/the-rousseauian-myth...
Eric Mc said:
Dr Jekyll said:
I'm a layperson and I understand it.
Well, I'm obviously a stupid layperson and I don't - and I've got too much work on my plate at the moment to spend time researching stuff like this.I was hoping you might be kind enough to explain.
Other humans arrive and wipe out original humans, largely with disease.
Birds flourish as competition for food is removed and as they are no longer hunted.
I understand that the huge numbers of buffalos witnessed by Europeans were also possibly not historically stable but were caused by the large scale removal of their biggest predator...Injuns.
Eric Mc said:
How efficient were the American natives in wiping out these large animal populations? Was it their access to more efficient weaponry from the Europeans that started the crash in bison and pigeon populations?
I have read several contradictory accounts on buffalo, and I can’t find my reference, but the buffalo were dead as soon as there was a price on their hides. The plains Indians went from killing a few animals per head per year to personally utilise, up to around 50 per head as soon as they tapped into the hide trade. The introduction of gunpowder and professional white hunters just excel excel erased the process.
In terms of the passenger pigeon, the link in the op claims it was always a rare bird, until competition for food was removed, then I guess the efficiency of the long gun did the rest.
Eric's original point is certainly valid, I think: there's a difference between the population being reduced back down to balanced and sustainable levels, and a species being wiped out altogether, and the linked article makes no attempt to explain or address that.
There's also a glaring flaw in their assumption that it was previously a rare bird because its bones were largely absent from native people's archaeological sites: I'm sure you's find that starling bones (for example) are largely absent from prehistoric UK people's archaeological sites. It doesn't mean that they didn't exist in significant numbers; it just means that we chose not to hunt them for food.
There's also a glaring flaw in their assumption that it was previously a rare bird because its bones were largely absent from native people's archaeological sites: I'm sure you's find that starling bones (for example) are largely absent from prehistoric UK people's archaeological sites. It doesn't mean that they didn't exist in significant numbers; it just means that we chose not to hunt them for food.
Equus said:
Eric's original point is certainly valid, I think: there's a difference between the population being reduced back down to balanced and sustainable levels, and a species being wiped out altogether, and the linked article makes no attempt to explain or address that.
There's also a glaring flaw in their assumption that it was previously a rare bird because its bones were largely absent from native people's archaeological sites: I'm sure you's find that starling bones (for example) are largely absent from prehistoric UK people's archaeological sites. It doesn't mean that they didn't exist in significant numbers; it just means that we chose not to hunt them for food.
The assumption it was uncommon based purely on bones sounds dodgy I agree. The way I read it was that it was suggesting a combination of hunting and natural reduction lead to extinction, as opposed to hunting itself. As opposed to the usual narrative of a vastly abundant species wiped out purely through hunting. There's also a glaring flaw in their assumption that it was previously a rare bird because its bones were largely absent from native people's archaeological sites: I'm sure you's find that starling bones (for example) are largely absent from prehistoric UK people's archaeological sites. It doesn't mean that they didn't exist in significant numbers; it just means that we chose not to hunt them for food.
Eric Mc said:
How efficient were the American natives in wiping out these large animal populations? Was it their access to more efficient weaponry from the Europeans that started the crash in bison and pigeon populations?
Another factor is horses - brought to the Americas by Spanish explorers in the 1500s. Harder to wipe out animals when all you can do is chase them on foot. Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff