Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Catastrophic Evolution/ more on large animals and extinction
Message-ID: <647@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 12:59:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.647
Posted: Tue Aug 13 12:59:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 03:57:48 EDT
References: <367@imsvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 76
Summary: 

In article <367@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:
>
>
>          1.   Several useful animal species  including  horses  and camels
>               became extinct  in the  Americas several thousand years ago.
>               No ancient tribe in its right mind would  exterminate all of
>               the horses in it's local.

	Not deliberately, but it is quite concievable that they could
do it by accident, look what is happening to Anchovies now! Look at
the Carrier Pigeon! It is amaxing how easily a species can be driven
to extinction quite by accident.
>
>          2.   The natives which the first white men in America encountered
>               were living in perfect harmony with nature, killing only for
>               food.  Since  one mammoth would feed a large tribe for a hell
>               of a  long  time,  there  is  no  chance  that  these people
>               exterminated the mammoths.

	Has it occured to you that this harmony was a result of
learning from thier mistakes! That perhaps after wiping out several
major food species they learned how to hunt without excess.

>
>          3.   There is  a hell  of a  difference between  trying to kill a
>               lone elephant, a  straggler  or  lone  bull,  and  trying to
>               exterminate elephants  generally.  The  latter would involve
>               attacking HERDS of elephants in which  the females  would be
>               attempting to protect the young, FAR more dangerous.

	Admittedly, but the archeological evidence is unquestionable,
early man did just that! The basic method of hunting mammoths &c was
to stampede them over cliffs and then pick up the remains. There are
just too many of these massacre sites to doubt that this happened.
Of course it was dangerous, and people probably got killed doing it,
but people get killed flying airplanes, a much less necessary
activity, and we still keep doing it.
>
>          4.   Attempting to  kill the PREDATERS of the archaic world would
>               require modern weapons.  I just can't picture anyone killing
>               a pteratorn or a north American super-lion (five feet at the
>               shoulders) or an ice-age giant cave  bear with  spears.  The
>               status of  archery in ancient north America is problematical
>	.....
>               (wood and animal horn) recurve bow.  Consider also that Fred
>               Bear, one of America's foremost  bow  hunters  and  owner of
>               Bear Archery Co., made several attempts to kill a polar bear
>               with a  modern  70  lb. hunting  bow  using  modern aluminum
>               arrows with  steel tips.  He had a buddy backing him up with
>               a 300 magnum rifle on each occasion and it was only on about
>               the fifth  try that he didn't NEED that friend along.
>
	Actually, early man probably didn't actively hunt these
preditors, but the lion, at least, has a tendency to attempt to steal
other predators food, and I am sure early man tried to defend his
hard-won prey. Remember, early hunting was a *group* effort, so the
difficulty a *single* had in killing a bear has little bearing on
the results of 20-30 hunters shooting at the same bear. Modern sport
hunting is quite different from the subsistence hunting of early man!

>          5.   Consider that rabbits and deer are tastier than elephants or
>               super-bisons  etc.,  have  always  been  plentiful  in north
>               America, and can be trapped and killed without  exposing the
>               hunters to any extreme danger.  Enough said.
>
	No, the food value of a Bison or Elephant is far greater than
such small prey. The problem with hunting for a living is effort required
to catch the prey. The large food value of large prey means more food
for less effort, and thus maximal hunting efficiency.
>
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen