Laliberte, A. and W. Ripple. “Wildlife Encounters by Lewis and Clark: A Spatial Analysis of Interactions Between Native Americans and Wildlife.” Bioscience 10 (2003): 994-2003. (reviewed by Carissa Sharp)
Summary
Many people believe that only with the invasion of people of European ancestry did the ecology of North America change. However, in Laliberte and Ripple's article, they address the influence of Native American populations on wildlife along Lewis and Clark's expedition in 1804-1806. They liken the observed patterns to those of animal predators and their prey. “Applied to human hunters, the theory is that wildlife may be able to escape predation in such an area, where the human population density and predation risk are low” (994). For example, in areas where there are fewer predators, the population density of prey animals will increase. The same patterns are found in areas that are less densely populated by humans, such as buffer zones between Native American nations along the route of Lewis and Clark.
Laliberte and Ripple used data from Lewis and Clark's journals to do statistical analysis of the animal populations in the time before much European influence in the western United States. They analyzed the hunting patterns of the party as well as their general observations about wildlife and correlated that data with the observed human presence in the areas. In order to define a settlement, the analysis only looked at sites where there were people at the time, not older or abandoned settlements. The authors showed that in the Columbia Basin, where there was a high density of Native Americans, the animal population was much lower than in the more “wild” areas that the expedition passed through.
Critique
This article had some methodological flaws. In using data from a 200 year-old journal, there are bound to be inconsistencies and exaggerations. Additionally, many Native American tribes moved quite often, and the study failed to take into account the fact that it might take some time for animals to move back into an area that had been recently inhabited by humans. However, even though the methodology of the article was not ideal, I found this article to be extremely informative and interesting.
While many people think the time before European settlers arrived was idyllic, and Native Americans and wildlife lived in harmony, this article shows that this was in fact not the case. While it is true that since that time, white people have had a much greater impact on nature because of increased population sizes and the increased ability to exploit the natural resources of the region, the Native Americans did the same thing on a smaller scale. The authors made a good choice to liken humans to an animal predator, for although common tendencies are to put humans in a separate category, the resulting patterns of behavior are similar to those observed among animals in nature.
The authors make some interesting observations about the past, which are easily extrapolated to relate to our time. For example, Native Americans in the Columbia Basin were able to flourish even though big game animals were scarce because of the high yield of salmon in the area. If it had not been for the salmon, they would have had a higher demand for game, and thus would have had to move to find that game, and likely would have had a decrease in population. This is the natural order of things: out of necessity, the predators cannot be in a disproportionate number to their prey. However, because of technological and cultural advances, humans have stepped out of that hierarchy, at least for the present time. Because we no longer rely just on our immediate circumstances for food, we have a tendency to exploit our resources without thinking about the future.
Robert D. Clark Honors College, University of Oregon
HC 441: Science Colloquium, Columbia River Ecology
Fall term, 2005
Send e-mail to the Webmaster