• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Maggie’s Motivational Pic Thread v2.0 - - New Rules - See Post #1

daily_gifdump_3371_28.gif





when the TP shortage hits- you have to be creative
 
Pretty interesting about the buffalo and disease, I’d also heard that they wouldn’t cross railroad tracks which cut their grazing area down and opened them up to easier attack from predators.
So if I read the article correctly, hunters, etc. didn't kill off the Buffalo. It was was a disease from cattle????
 
So if I read the article correctly, hunters, etc. didn't kill off the Buffalo. It was was a disease from cattle????
Yea, pretty much. It's not a disputable fact that there was wanton killing of buffalo. That's not in dispute, there were monetary drivers for the meat and hides in addition to any other drivers. For the cattle link, after the RR got built and the war between the states ended people started driving cattle north to CO, WY and MT from TX. Before the Transcontinental got built there wouldn't have been a point because there wasn't a way to get them to market. Abilene, KS was the western terminus before that.

The RRs and the cattle industry is a big part of the history out in that part of the world. There is a lot of info out there to read, it's pretty interesting.
 
So if I read the article correctly, hunters, etc. didn't kill off the Buffalo. It was was a disease from cattle????

yeah, that’s about the gist of it, but animals getting blood borne illnesses from other animals doesn’t allow you to blame a group of people for something happening or push an agenda. My original point was that you can’t always apply today’s value system on the past and have an easy black and white discussion about who was right and who was wrong.
 
So, by your thinking it is better that all the trees die of old age, and do NO ONE any good. Hamfisted, for sure.
White tailed Deer, by the way, are at pestiferous levels in the southeast, which is why some states have a 3 month season, and a 5 deer limit.
Sustained harvest of trees is a proven method, and private forests are producing at a prodigeous rate, all over the pacific northwest. Huge trees. The same could be done in the National Forests, but the FS is filled with leftist "conservationists" who know nothing about forest management.
"Old Growth" is a climax forest, a dying forest. What comes after "Old Growth" is death, and collapse of the ecosystem. The death and disease of older trees is a sad testament to the lack of thinking on the part of Federal management.

Sustained harvest of trees has nothing to do with cutting down giant trees that live thousands of years. Just because we are where we are, doesn't mean everything that was done to get here was smart. It is fine to call the out the stupid things done by past generations. That is a way we learn from history. To call the forrest service Marxist for stopping the cutting of the giant red woods, is silly.

Old growth forrest is a somewhat sustained state. It is not forrest that just about to die, as you are attempting to characterize it.

Climax community In scientific ecology climax community, or climatic climax community, is a historic term for a boreal forest community of plants, animals, and fungi which, through the process of ecological succession in the development of vegetation in an area over time, have reached a steady state. This equilibrium was thought to occur because the climax community is composed of species best adapted to average conditions in that area. The term is sometimes also applied in soil development. Nevertheless, it has been found that a "steady state" is more apparent than real, particularly if long-enough periods of time are taken into consideration. Notwithstanding, it remains a useful concept.

I don’t disagree with you that everything you have mentioned were bad things that we have done but it’s easy to look back in 2020, as a beneficiary of those destructions, and say that it was wrong to do those things because we have technology now that prevents the need for deforestation and destruction of species. No doubt killing off buffalo herds was unspeakable but it provided the high quality flat leather belts that the country needed to literally drive the mechanical manufacturing revolution that started our path to becoming a super power. Sure, flat belts and overhead shafts were rapidly replaced with high quality vulcanized rubber v- belts and electric motors but that technology and quality didn’t exist in the 1870s. Decimation of old growth timber was again, a horrible atrocity to everyone of us who loves the woods and it is apparent now that it was very harmful to the environment but that timber was needed for the west coast to become the technological giant it is today and to literally support the rails that brought people west. Not to mention it provided jobs that housed, clothed, and fed people and their families.

it’s easy to look back at the atrocities Of the past and say something”woke” about how stupid people had been in a previous age, much more difficult to put yourself in that time and imagine if you would have been a vocal critic of the technologies that were making your life considerably better. It’s like the people who criticized Mark Kelly for quoting Winston Churchill, sure Churchill was probably a racist and he supported imperialism and a host of other bad things, but he was the only Western European leader of the time who was able to stem the tide and fight back against nazi expansion. You can’t evaluate history purely on the ideals of that time or based on modern ideals, neither can you revise and delete the parts you don’t like. You have to weigh the good with the bad, and determine if the ends justified the means. a better use of time than saying what a bunch of idiots our parents had been or how our ancestors wrecked the world or the economy would be to ask yourself what terrible evils are we creating for our children. Learn from the past, modify the present, and build a better future. Just my opinion, but the world today has a lot more critics than problem solvers and doers.

By my thinking, they should have used trees more sustainable than trees that live 500-2000+ years, to build stuff that was mostly gone 100 years ago. It was stupid not to realize the giants they were cutting took centuries to get that way. You assume this country could have only been built if they killed all Buffalo, cut down the old growth forrest and giant trees. I don't think that is the case. I know many of their incorrect assumptions on how the world works has held us back then, and are still holding us back today.

Even if buffalo was their only source of leather. Which it was not, it was just a resource being harvested as though it was unlimited. Buffalo were shot by the thousands from trains and left to rot with nothing harvested. The argument that the buffalo being killed off made peoples life better, seems far fetched to me.

If you actually want to talk about this please PM, so we can take this out of the motivational picture thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wh20crazy
Sustained harvest of trees has nothing to do with cutting down giant trees that live thousands of years. Just because we are where we are, doesn't mean everything that was done to get here was smart. It is fine to call the out the stupid things done by past generations. That is a way we learn from history. To call the forrest service Marxist for stopping the cutting of the giant red woods, is silly.

Old growth forrest is a somewhat sustained state. It is not forrest that just about to die, as you are attempting to characterize it.

Climax community In scientific ecology climax community, or climatic climax community, is a historic term for a boreal forest community of plants, animals, and fungi which, through the process of ecological succession in the development of vegetation in an area over time, have reached a steady state. This equilibrium was thought to occur because the climax community is composed of species best adapted to average conditions in that area. The term is sometimes also applied in soil development. Nevertheless, it has been found that a "steady state" is more apparent than real, particularly if long-enough periods of time are taken into consideration. Notwithstanding, it remains a useful concept.



By my thinking, they should have used trees more sustainable than trees that live 500-2000+ years, to build stuff that was mostly gone 100 years ago. It was stupid not to realize the giants they were cutting took centuries to get that way. You assume this country could have only been built if they killed all Buffalo, cut down the old growth forrest and giant trees. I don't think that is the case. I know many of their incorrect assumptions on how the world works has held us back then, and are still holding us back today.

Even if buffalo was their only source of leather. Which it was not, it was just a resource being harvested as though it was unlimited. Buffalo were shot by the thousands from trains and left to rot with nothing harvested. The argument that the buffalo being killed off made peoples life better, seems far fetched to me.

If you actually want to talk about this please PM, so we can take this out of the motivational picture thread.

"If you actually want to talk about this please PM, so we can take this out of the motivational picture thread."

Thank you, I was becoming motivated to hit myself in the fucking head with a hammer.
 
Let me inspire some of you to look further into the facts of the depletion of the bison in North America, it wasn't buffalo hunters.

If you do the math based on the estimated heard size in the mid 19th century it's just not possible that a bunch of hunters with single shot rifles on horseback with wagons were able to deplete a heard of 10s of millions that ran from the Canadian border to Kansas from the Rockies to the Mississippi river. It's just not possible.




I enjoy how everyone forgets that the natives ran whole herds off cliffs and then used what didn't rot. Most rotted before they could use it so they killed another herd in a month.

But they were so good at using all the parts!
 
So if I read the article correctly, hunters, etc. didn't kill off the Buffalo. It was was a disease from cattle????
It was a disease. Origin unknown
No records on rainfall
Drought killed grass and no drinking water
Late spring freeze that killer the new grass
Billions of grasshoppers that age grass
Harsh winter

In one year, most died without external injury
 
That's about the dumbest thing I've read today.
The mayor may not have the stones to do anything about the riots, but OSHA can impose some hefty fines for entering a construction zone without proper PPE.
Fucking OSHA is going to enforce the law?
You're a retard..


Wait I am sorry. I was wrong. Somehow I missed the sarcasm.

Thanks for the laugh.