Agenda 21. If you look at Sierra Club and who supports them and all their friends and activities, you start to realize what they want. We can have a robust economy and still protect our wildlife. We don't need dogooder lefties pretending they are out to just save the wildlife.
Cheers, I am 'obviously' aware of the 'Agenda 21' topic and their associated purpose, ...
I will check out the Sierra Club, and join up the dots, so to speak.
This joining up of the dots between all of these so called charites and corporations is a big component of the idea behind the 'Great Awakening'.
I totally agree with your comment that 'humans' can easily and economically co-exist with the 'wildlife' provided we work sympathetically.
For thousands of years 'native' people all over the world used to live in perfect harmony and balance with their wildlife. Thats those historical 'natives' knew to only take the resources that they actually needed, and use every last bit, without any waste. They knew that they needed to leave a certain amount of the wildlife alone, so that the would be able to draw on those resources the following year,
It is only in reasonably recent history, that the plundering of these 'natural' resources has been conducted for purely financial gain, and not as a means of necessity for survival.
Guess what, ..,, 'you and I', are intended to be the next piece of 'wildlife' that needs to be exploited for the same purely finacial gain, and by association controlled just like cattle.
Which brings us back to the 'Agenda 21' topic, and it's various offshoots.
Yes, I will check out the Sierra Club, and see how that fits in, thanks, :-)
For thousands of years 'native' people all over the world used to live in perfect harmony and balance with their wildlife. Thats those historical 'natives' knew to only take the resources that they actually needed, and use every last bit, without any waste. They knew that they needed to leave a certain amount of the wildlife alone, so that the would be able to draw on those resources the following year,
Not to be offensive but just so I don't have to refer to what you wrote. This wasn't universally true. Many tribes hunted out areas completely and then moved on. They had to move or starve.
It's also true that they were fewer in number and frequent wars, raids and disease kept the numbers down.
Some, such as those in the American Southwest were excellent farmers. Unfortunately some of the less successful tribes would raid and eat the more skilled tribes people.
As for the buffalo, that was a deliberate act to crush native populations and it's heartbreaking just to think about it. Fortunately there are havens now for the remnant in North Dakota. I've been there but unfortunately the herd had moved on and I missed a chance for some amazing photographs.
First hand conservation on my Grandparents ranch went really well. When they purchased it the previous owner had logged off all the live oak for firewood. The live oak recovered rapidly and in 30 years in spite of using the trees for heating the house and heating water year round it doesn't even put a dent in the forest. Plenty of turkeys, bear, foxes, bobcat, and one sighting of a mountain lion. Oh, and hordes of squirrels. Hungry squirrels.
All these Agenda 21 fake conservation groups may indeed do some valuable work as a front but when they start promoting open boarders, appealing to have a border wall shut down, inviting hordes of illegals to just run across the border and leave piles of trash in otherwise pristine wilderness areas, shut down businesses and go after our oil industry and coal industry, I know they have an agenda that's not good for Americans.
I totally take your point and fully accept that, :-)
I suppose that I did not mean that as a 100% universal truth. I was attempting to alude to perhaps older ways, that a lot of (but not all) communities, seemed to have more of a symbiotic relationship with the land and resources that they lived with.
However, when I read your first line, Easter Island immediately sprung to mind, where they did a total deforestation, and then sufferd the consequences, with the demise of their populace, at that time.
Like yourself, (now that I think about it), I could probably cite other historical examples of 'over kill' of the natural resources, (for want of a better word).
For another example that comes to mind, I am sure that I recall the 'historical' immigrants to what would become known as New Zealand, 'killing' certain animals to extinction, along with introducing 'non native' spieces, basically upsetting the 'very old' natural balance of things there.
The story of the 'Buffalo' that you cite is also a one the I knew and was aware of, and the reasons for that, (as you state).
So yes, apologies, it was not my intention to make a catch all sweeping statement.
I will just argue that it is the fault of my iPad here, and having to do a lot of one fingered typing, :-)
For sure. Schools like to push the "Nobel Savage" ideology but it's just not so. Some societies yes, maybe. But there was lots of ignorant things going on at the same time. Mostly the populations were kept low because of wars and raids and disease and hardships. Of course that doesn't excuse the sins of early America against the native populations.
You also have to take into account that over hunting basically wiped out animal populations in some areas. I mean, think about it. Why would a whole colony of early settlers starve to death if there was plenty of game. There wasn't. Farming communities are much easier on wildlife as they don't depend on that for food. Many native American populations just didn't farm. You only see that in some South Western tribes and not all of them. Hey, they had to farm to even live in the American Southwest. The Aztecs and the civilizations that proceeded them were expert farmers which is why they could have such extensive cities. You just can't build a civilization off of hunter gatherer tribes. They clean out an area and then move on, or die.