114 pointsby bikenaga4 days ago4 comments
  • y33t4 days ago
    I saw a documentary (PBS? Ken Burns? Something like that) about bison and I'm astonished we have any left today. They had a couple of private herds and a handful of individuals in zoos, and that was just about it. That's after having a population, less than a century previous, that produced regular accounts of covering the land for as far as the eye could see. The only reason we didn't wipe them out completely was because of just a few people working independently of one another who thought it would be a shame to see them disappear.
    • sidewndr464 days ago
      It was a deliberate attempt to deprive Native Americans of their historical means of support. You can't besiege a Native American city because they had already been pushed off their historical lands. But if you can eliminate a major source of food for them, it's possibly even more effective.

      In general people under-estimate the capability of humanity to eradicate other forms of life. We've managed to eliminates organisms as plentiful as things like rinderpest for example. Large animals are actually easier. Were it not for a last minute change, almost all forms of whales would have been extinct in the 20th century. We've been the most advanced life form on Earth for a long time, possibly even before modern humans arrived. But in the past 1000 years or so we really became the most dominant life form. Our population has exploded and we can pretty much push out any other form of life we choose.

      • snowwrestler4 days ago
        Latest estimates I recall are that humans and our livestock together comprise over 90% of the total mass of land animals globally. All wild animals together are less than 10%.

        The mental picture of a wild Earth on which humans live is now outdated. The Earth has become a human place, with essentially some open-air zoos containing the few wild animals we have chosen to not kill.

      • buerkle4 days ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust is an interesting example of eradicating an organism. From massive swarms of locusts to none in under 30 years.
      • Miraste4 days ago
        This is true of macro life forms, but rinderpest is a bad example. It's one of only two diseases we have ever been able to eliminate. Both of them were viruses-we've never stopped a bacterial disease, and with the increasing failure of antibiotics, that's only going to get worse.
      • cyberax4 days ago
        > It was a deliberate attempt to deprive Native Americans of their historical means of support.

        No, it was not. The bison population collapse was not something expected or planned. One year the bison simply disappeared (1882).

        The bison ecosystem in North America was deeply unnatural. Bison are fast-replicating herbivores that don't have any natural predators! This only happened because Natives exterminated almost all the large predators.

        Such systems almost always go through boom-bust cycles, and that's exactly what happened. The migration patterns were disturbed by railroads, and that likely led to the spread of the Texas tick fever and anthrax among the bison population. They have around 90% death rate, and that's what caused the population collapse.

        However, this time the population did not recover by itself.

        > But if you can eliminate a major source of food for them, it's possibly even more effective.

        It's the same nonsense as giving smallpox-impregnated blankets used to exterminate populations.

        • onychomys4 days ago
          Do you have any evidence for the claim that it was disease rather than the immense slaughter?
          • cyberax4 days ago
            Yes. There are multiple papers written about this, here's a nice overview article: https://www.nacdnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/bisoncoll...

            There was overhunting of bison, but normally overhunting leads to a gradual decline of the population (and we've seen that with overfishing). The bison near-extinction happened within _one_ year. The hunters in 1883 were waiting in vain for the bison to come.

            • sidewndr464 days ago
              from page 108:

              Removing 840,000 animals from 4.5 million leaves them a good 3 million short of extinct. But Texas tick fever has an 81% death rate.11 Removing 81% from 4.5 million leaves just 855,000. Shooting b 840,000 of them leaves N 15,000, which is a lot like b 25,177 (Fig. 1)

              Their own conclusions was that absent hunting, there would have been around 855,000 bison that year. Hunting reduced the remaining population after tick fever by 99.2%! Ignoring this is the equivalent of suggesting it was not an iceberg that sunk the titanic, but a lack of buoyancy.

              • cyberax4 days ago
                Well, yes. Hunting obviously was a part of the issue.

                I'm just saying that bison near-extinction was not a result of a directed action to exterminate them.

                It's more fair to say that bison went through a normal bust cycle and hunting prevented them from bouncing back.

                • goldencoralefan3 days ago
                  You’ve shown an interesting insight: hunting could not have been only cause of the near-extinction of the buffalo. However, the way you’ve presented it is extremely misleading. It sounds like you are blaming the natives for the downfall of the buffalo.

                  I do not believe this is what you intended to get across, since the evidence you have presented doesn’t support it. Please be careful about how you share information. It is as important as the information itself.

                  The buffalo did not just disappear and the extermination was most definitely planned. Regardless of the logistical impossibility of that goal via hunting alone, this was the goal and the goal was achieved. This is well documented. The technicality between “preventing a bounce back” and “seeking extermination” does not matter, because the goal was extermination.

                  • cyberax3 days ago
                    > It sounds like you are blaming the natives for the downfall of the buffalo.

                    Well, yeah. They created an unhealthy ecological situation with abysmal biodiversity, where one species dominated an entire ecological niche without natural predators.

                    And it's not like the North American Natives are special. Humans have been causing large-scale extinctions since the Ice Age: https://ourworldindata.org/quaternary-megafauna-extinction

                    > this was the goal and the goal was achieved.

                    Care to provide the proof? Contemporary official documents, large-scale official plans, etc.?

                    • goldencoralefan3 days ago
                      In looking through sources, I'm no longer even convinced that disease was relevant anymore. An encyclopedia article shows a decline from about 15 million in 1865 to 7 million in 1873 - roughly 1 million per year.[1] This sounds like a gradual decline to me. And with some math Buffalo Bill famously killed 4000 over two years. Assuming the average hunter only did a tenth of that, it would only take 5000 hunters over 20 years to get the job done (roughly).

                      Furthermore, the National Park Service, part of the Department of the Interior, quotes the Secretary of the Interior of 1873 stating that "[t]he civilization of the Indian is impossible while buffalo remain on the plains”.[2] In fact the DOI secretary in 2023 said verbatim that "bison were nearly driven to extinction through uncontrolled hunting and a U.S. policy of eradication tied to intentional harm against and control of Tribes". [3]

                      This is not hard to believe at al. There were centuries of war between the natives and the settlers. Presidential campaigns slogans focused on defeats over the Indians[4]. The U.S. absolutely hated the Natives from the start. One of the cited grievances in the Declaration of Independence is the fact that Britain would deal with the Natives.

                      It is both plausible and proven that extermination was the goal. If you still don't believe this here is the most detailed timeline I've ever seen on the subject from the US Fish and Wildlife service. [5]

                      [1] https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-... [2] https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/what-happened-to-the-bison.... [3] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-announ... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe [5] https://web.archive.org/web/20200210033215/https://www.fws.g...

                  • moi23883 days ago
                    Do you have any source for this being planned to exterminate them to make it more difficult for the natives?

                    Because it sure sounds like that wouldn’t have happened without the diseases eliminating well over 80% of the population already

        • SpicyUme4 days ago
          Grizzly bears hunted bison and were present in the plains states down through Texas and into Mexico. The last Grizzly in Arizona was killed later than the last one in California.
          • cyberax4 days ago
            Grizzly bears do not normally hunt healthy adult bison. They will normally hunt weakened or injured individuals, or bison calves.

            In general, predators need to be overwhelmingly more powerful than their prey (or use pack tactics, like lions).

      • jurenbert4 days ago
        [dead]
    • openasocket4 days ago
      There are several examples of this in other species. The Przewalski horse is probably one of the most dramatic examples. The population was reduced to around a dozen individuals, all in captivity. After an intensive breeding and reintroduction program, the population is now around 2,000, with several hundred of those in the wild. There's also the Père David's deer. It's an interesting species: the only semi-aquatic deer species. It has webbing between its hooves and eats aquativ plants (along with grass). They were hunted essentially to extinction in their native territory in China, the only remaining individuals were a handful taken by missionaries (including Père David, their namesake). Today their population is over 8,000, with hundreds reintroduced to the wild.

      It's sad to think about, but it's also hopeful in a way. Humanity as a whole nearly killed these species, but a few dedicated individuals were able to save them.

      • PlunderBunny4 days ago
        The Black Robin in New Zealand is almost the most extreme example of a recovery from near extinction: Just 1 female and 5 males in the early 1980s have now bred a population of around 300 individuals. There's an interesting story in the wikipedia page [0] of 'edge laying' egg behaviour, and how humans initially corrected the problem but later had to stop to ensure the behaviour wasn't propagated.

        0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_robin

    • karmakurtisaani4 days ago
      Something similar also happened in Europe. They were eradicated everywhere but a small natural park in Poland. Now they are being reintroduced, although I don't know where they will find the space.
    • gooseus4 days ago
    • david384 days ago
      This is not true. An officer from the US was sent to protect the Yellowstone herd at some point. IIRC he had previously been assigned to fight Indians and had a track record for “effectiveness” aka modern day war crimes. Apparently this was more a personality trait than particular hatred of the tribes of the plains because when he was ordered to protect the bison, he did it with the same energy and “effectiveness”.

      Not claiming he was the only one, but possibly the only one with enough guns, soldiers T his command, the backing of an executive order, and a dim enough view of human life to move the needle as much as he did.

      I need to go research this again and erase this comment if I’m talking trash or update it if I’m not.

    • kjkjadksj3 days ago
      They’ve essentially been replaced with cattle. There are probably more cattle on american and europeans grazing lands today than there were ever bison if I had to guess.
    • writtenAnswer4 days ago
      Makes sense. In Zoo tycoon, these fuckers kept breeding like no one's business.
  • kaikai4 days ago
    I have mixed feelings about this news, because while it’s good to have more genetic diversity, it makes it easier to justify culling animals. Having multiple herds with distinct breeding populations means each herd is more likely to get protected.

    The us government culls bison from the Yellowstone herd every year, to discourage them from leaving them park and competing with cattle grazing on public lands.

    Bison are managed completely differently than other wildlife in the area like moose and elk, because they compete with cattle. They’re forced to stay inside the higher elevation park boundaries, even when the snow is too high for them to forage effectively. They get hazed by helicopters, chased by DOL agents and rangers on horseback, and forced to run miles through snow to cross that invisible line back in Yellowstone. I’ve seen newborn bison calves with broken legs from getting hazed back into the park.

    If they were allowed to migrate seasonally and breed normally, they would have a much larger range and population.

    Source: I used to live on the park boundary and was part of a group documenting bison management.

    • _DeadFred_4 days ago
      Does the land they keep the bison from going to happen to be federal land the cattle farmers lease? Since you say DOL agents it sounds like. So lame. Prioritizing private ranchers on the peoples' land.
      • kaikai4 days ago
        It’s a mix of federal, state, and private land. There was a group of private landowners that fought for years to keep the DOL from hazing bison off of their PRIVATELY owned land on Horsehead Butte.

        And yes, that’s the Department of Livestock. There’s an interagency management group that handles bison in the area, including the Department of Livestock and at times Homeland Security. They also run catch pens near Gardiner, where they round up wild bison and send them to slaughter houses.

    • onychomys4 days ago
      There's actually LESS genetic diversity in a single breeding population than in two separate ones. When you have two, they can drift in different directions or be subject to different selection pressures. With just one, all of that stuff is swamped out.
      • kjkjadksj3 days ago
        Well they can drift until they no longer are capable of interbreeding. Now you have two species with small populations lacking diversity.
        • Karellen3 days ago
          That takes a really long time though. Most domestic dogs can still breed with wild wolves after ~14,000 years of being pretty well separated by humans, and after some fairly substantial phenotypic shifts.
    • FuriouslyAdrift4 days ago
      There's also a herd at Custer National Park comprised of 2 breeds ("Minneconjou" and "Humbolt")
  • kapitanjakc4 days ago
    Isn't interbreeding bad for their health?

    Genuine question.

    Is it interbreeding in a way like all bisons present now are sharing the ancestors or is it like it's all a single family of 6k bisons now ?

    • InitialLastName4 days ago
      The notable discovery is that, where the evidence a few decades ago was that the bison were breeding in their historical herds (so multiple, smaller genetic pools), they now appear to be breeding between herds (so a single larger, more diverse genetic pool).

      AIUI with small populations, more variation in breeding between groups is a good thing, because it spreads genetic diversity across the whole population.

    • Sharlin4 days ago
      You probably mean inbreeding. Interbreeding is good. It is good that the bison herds mingle and interbreed.

      Anyway, for mammals an initial population of a couple dozen individuals (assuming they're reasonably genetically diverse in the first place) is plenty enough to produce a population of any size without problems.

      • onychomys4 days ago
        There's a general guideline called the 50-500 rule. You need at least 50 animals to avoid immediate inbreeding (and also stochastic extinction from a fire or flood or disease etc), and about 500 to have a genetically healthy population. That varies some after a bottleneck event since your genetic population will be functionally less than your actual physical one, but it's a decent way to approach the problem.
    • ch4s34 days ago
      Having a single breeding population across the park creates more genetic diversity than would be present in isolated herds.
    • thrance4 days ago
      > Bison like those in Yellowstone once suffered a population crisis that conservationists call the "population bottleneck" of the 19th century. By the early 1900s, American bison numbers had been reduced by 99.9% across North America and only 23 wild bison were known to have survived poaching in Yellowstone.

      So at their worst this particular population only had 23 individuals left. Interbreeding is bad insofar as it increases the chances of passing harmful recessive genes to younger generations.

    • diggan4 days ago
      Compared to the alternative of the species not surviving at all, it seems like the better option :)

      Besides, it seems like they think it's genetically healthy, so doesn't seem like a problem. I'm assuming they've verified this somehow.

      > Today, the Texas A&M researchers report that the Yellowstone bison population appears to be functioning as a single and genetically healthy population that fluctuates between 4,000 and 6,000 individuals.

      • nonethewiser4 days ago
        > Compared to the alternative of the species not surviving at all

        How about compared to two distinct herds?

      • casenmgreen4 days ago
        Getting that "living on top of a volcano" risk feeling :-)
    • pinkmuffinere4 days ago
      Biology is not my area of expertise, but: Interbreeding is bad when it’s a small population interbreeding for a long long time. From the article it sounds like they aren’t worried about the genetic diversity of this 6k bison herd. I’m sure it would be better to have more diversity, but that’s hard to achieve with animals brought back from near-extinction.
      • darth_avocado4 days ago
        There are a lot of private herds. But a lot of them have been bred with domesticated cattle and do not have the pure bison DNA in them. They can be used as a last resort. The solution here would be to slowly start separating herds to more locations away from Yellowstone. Over generations, the genetic makeup will separate enough to be considered separate populations.
    • gavindean904 days ago
      At least two groups are now breeding as a single population. The genetic diversity might be more spread out over the population. As I understand the article there were two functionally separate groups as late as 20 years ago (already 100 years after the introduction of the Texas bison to the original Montana heard) and now they are recorded as being a single population.
  • pmdulaney4 days ago
    There are some bison on Catalina Island. Maybe they should swap some animals.
    • kaikai4 days ago
      The Catalina bison (like many bison in other places) have interbred with cattle. They’re not purely bison anymore.
      • pmdulaney4 days ago
        Thanks - I didn't know that was possible.
      • thehappypm3 days ago
        The Catalina bovine mixer
        • pmdulaney3 days ago
          That sounds like a cocktail you might order in Avalon!