Market hunters using large caliber muzzle loading rifles did have an impact, but widespread drought conditions in the west during the 1850's killed most of them.
It wasn't the 45-70 though. For one thing the 45-70 loads of the 1870's weren't powerful enough to be effective. I'm sure some the 45-70 accounted for a few, but the 22 Hornet has accounted for a few deer too. 45-70 was introduced in 1873, most of the bison were dead by then and laws banning bison hunting were passed in 1874 to protect the handful left.
This guy knows nothing about the 45-70. Guys are still using a lead 405 in front of a case full of blackpowder and they're still shooting through Bison. The Buffalo were everywhere after the Civil War when guys headed West. They wrote about it. Custer wrote about it too. There were no laws protecting Buffalo passed. The Grant administration's policy was to wipe out the Bison in order to starve out the Plains Indians. Little Phil Sheridan came up with that plan. JMR40 is one of the biggest idiots and largest disseminators of misinformation on the entire Campfire
If there was disease in Buffalo herds..........then it would have been far south, and then the herds would of been wiped out before the disease made its way north, and that would explain why it wasn't documented north of the 49th.
In my family there were 3 generations of plains hunters, that is all they did and it was/is documented, records were kept. So then if a hunter lasted 20 years which I think realistic, they went on 2 annual hunts with on average 200 hunters, sometimes more/less.......I think it probable they killed several thousand Buffalo each in their lifetime, mostly Cows. Instead of thinking about how many Calves are being born, one should be wondering how many are not born. Near the end of the vast herds people starved to death on the plains and they were all color of people.
The notion that Native hunters never wasted the resource is ridiculous, they still do the same today, I see it on a daily basis. I dont understand why guys cant fathom that when you kill females of any species unfettered, bad things are going to happen. I have just witnessed with my own eyes a 75% decrease in the Elk pops over 20 years, disease??
Buffalo Bill was reputed to have killed at least 5,000 by his own hand, he is just one guy.
I have also just witnessed about a 75% decrease in the Whitetail pops in 10 years because of a regulated female harvest, is that disease too?? Sure there are people who will disagree about that too, but I notice they enjoy shooting a doe, then go back to their home in the City and think everything is the same.
WTF do people think a female harvest is all about? up here at this time it is a 2 week season and it is to decrease the pops and that is all.
All species of people participated willingly in the demise of the Buffalo, and some of them were never able to recover from the economic, societal, and cultural impacts of that.
673: No doubt the hunters played a part but the simple arithmetic doesn't allow for near extinction to have been caused by hunting alone. The herds were too large and the range too vast.
As I said the disease outran its point of origin and devastated the herd. Hunters finished the job.
The near extinction of the bison and the prior devastation by disease of the native Indians did play a huge part in the ability of the U.S. government to control the mid-west and west. Otherwise farming and settlement would have been impossible.
Neither the bison or the Indian were going to be domesticated.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
I found this a number of years ago, some of you may find it interesting.
Notice Idaho. There were no buffalo there in 1870. Idaho at that time was mainly mining and trapping. Extensive farming didn't come along until later when irrigation was established as most of Idaho is too dry for dry farming. The 1st town established in Idaho was in 1860 and the buffalo were largely gone by then. They weren't hunted out because there weren't enough people to do that. Something else got rid of them.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
It was after the war, people had no future, and there was a great financial panic. The fancy folks back east wanted robes and meat....yes there was a lot of meat recovered but no refrigerator railcars or the the waste would have been much less. People needed cash money and here was a commodity to be had to gain a stake or feed their family. Right or wrong I would been there doing the same or busting longhorns out of the South Texas Brush.
About the guns. The 50-70 likely figured more in the kill of more buffalo than other calibers. Remember the Indians were killing hell out of them too with lances, muzzleloaders, and 50-70 needle guns. Early on it, the 44-77,50-90, and 44-90 were very popular. The 45-110 arrived on the range in 76 and it became the preferred caliber of the big outfits. Although the 45-70 was around evidently it didn't gain a following till most of the herds were gone....mainly when Mecham began mass marketing converted and re-barrelled Sharps to 45-70. Fact is, I can't, nor can friends who also study this thing come up with a professional hunter that used the 45-70. If you know of one I'd sure like to know.
Some here might enjoy this set of books: Encyclopedia of Buffalo Hunters & Skinners Vol 1&2. And if yall will buy enough maybe they just publish Vol 3
673: No doubt the hunters played a part but the simple arithmetic doesn't allow for near extinction to have been caused by hunting alone. The herds were too large and the range too vast.
As I said the disease outran its point of origin and devastated the herd. Hunters finished the job.
The near extinction of the bison and the prior devastation by disease of the native Indians did play a huge part in the ability of the U.S. government to control the mid-west and west. Otherwise farming and settlement would have been impossible.
Neither the bison or the Indian were going to be domesticated.
I always respect your thoughts on any subject you dialogue on here, this is no different. Why is there nothing recorded in the fur traders journals of massive dead and diseased Buffalo? The arithmetic doesn't add up because the numbers are skewed from the start, the estimates are too high.
By the time disease was among the Native pops the Buffalo was already in decline, which only made things worse, as an example, my ggrandfather was born in 1860, one of 12 children, 7 died on the plains, 5 survived.
I would also say the number of Metis hunters alone were up to 5,000-7,000 in 1850, I am looking at a page of the Pembina census 1850 right now, the page has 10-12 names on it and they are all hunters, just 1 page, and almost always their children were listed as hunters as well.
Then we have indian hunters, we have no known number of hunters, its safe to say alot. We then have non-native hunters, that is an unknown, safe to say it was alot.
Watch the PSB series:) It was very enlightening. It was mostly due to the market hunters killing them for their hides and tongues. Plus plenty of indiscriminate killing by a lot of different groups.
My biggest fear is when I die my wife will sell my guns for what I told her they cost.
I thought it would be off. But like the first responder, you didn't help. In fact, while I wrote it I was hoping mathman might arrive and help.
One example.
Originally Posted by Ringman
If we give each buffalo ten (10) feet on each side and ten feet in front and behind, it possesses about 300 square feet.
"If we give each buffalo ten (10) feet on each side and ten feet in front and behind" While that is a lot of words to describe "a ten foot radius" the math is essentially correct - 314...square feet is "about 300 square feet" for discussion purposes. This answer is neither pro nor con to the OPs hypothesis, just a defense of a statement being incorrectly contested.
Now y'all enjoy your arguments.
Rex
No bone to pick with anyone here. Didn’t opine that it was germane. Ringman asked for help.
But to your statement, if you start using radiuses, it is more complicated. Using the radius will add an additional error to the existing 4% by overestimating the occupied square footage - cuboidal vs circular packing.
Drought, famine, fire, etc. if not why only 30 million or whatever before whites? Should have been never ending trillions.
Osky
No doubt there were some factors you mention, fire may have killed alot, but then the plains were enriched a couple months later and it was good times again. I guess even a fertile land can only support so much grazing.
Evidently, alot of Buffalo drowned, the last time I and the family were back (home) in Saskatchewan my boys came back to our camp with a partial skull they had found sticking out of the bank of the Saskatchewan river, another fellow had an almost complete skull from that day alone.
There is more evidence in the massive piles of bones that were all over the plains from massive hunting excursions. From around 1900-1930 many people made a living picking the bones and selling them for fertilizer, my family did or they starved.
By 1860-1870 hunters were already traveling from the red river settlement (Winnipeg) to the Rocky mtns looking for dwindling herds. Going south across the 49th to hunt meant dealing with unfriendlies, which they did anyways, but then there was no point after the pops were slaughtered.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/x1hRzVNy/Buffalo-Herds.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/pX45Sg41/IMG-2349.jpg)