Used to be, I’d get up in the morning and turn on the cable TV news. Just to, you know, find out if the world had blown up overnight. Then I’d come home from work and catch up on the news of the day.
Can’t do it anymore.
For one thing, it’s not “news” — CNN’s perennial “Breaking News” banner notwithstanding. It’s infotainment; panels of pundits masticating political bones. I actually feel dumber after watching a half‐hour of that crap.
What’s a media addict to do when he’s in need of an audio‐visual fix — one that can actually produce a desirable effect? Fire up the Youtube and get a quick shot of history.
*
Indy Neidell has brought The Great War to millions of viewers.
On July 28, 2014, an American expat living in Sweden named Indiana Neidell (for real) launched a Youtube project titled The Great War.
Its premise was to cover the events of the First World War, matching up the centennial of that seminal conflict week by week through November 11, 2018. Other segments included technology developed during the war, concurrent events like the Mexican Revolution and vignettes on remarkable personalities.
In hundreds of short shots of under 10 minutes to as much as 20 minutes, The Great War adds up to a deep immersion in an extraordinary historical event. Neidell left the project after carrying it through the centenary of the Armistice, and a Canadian historian named Jesse Alexander picked up with material dealing with the aftershocks of the war such as the German Revolution and the Russian Civil War.
Neidell and his creative partner Spartacus Olsson (for real) have since created content through their TimeGhost channel covering World War II and the fascinating but underrepresented interwar years in Between 2 Wars.
Gen. Jozef Pilsudski thinks you’d better tune in.
With literally hundreds of short, quality documentaries at your fingertips, you have a way to start the day or wind down from work that actually makes you feel like you’ve learned something.
*
Supposedly, these are dire times for the discipline of history. The New Yorker recently ran a piece decrying The Decline Of Historical Thinking and Financial Times posited that U.S. Declining Interest In History Presents Risk To Democracy. Both pieces focus on the crash in numbers of history majors in universities. And both pieces have a particular political slant.
I am not convinced that people in general are as disinterested as the declining numbers of history majors at university might lead us to believe. What if we’re focusing on the wrong things in the wrong ways when it comes to encouraging a grasp of history? Making knowledge of history sound like a civic duty puts a dreary cast on what ought to be a lusty, red‐blooded passion.
Back in graduate school, I earned a big, fat C on a paper for an economic history class. I’d chosen to write about the Molly Maguires and the labor unrest in the anthracite coal country of Pennsylvania in the 1870s. “Too much story. Not enough economics.”
The Molly Maguires. Why on earth would I want to focus on the economics? OK, yes, it it WAS an economic history class, but so what? Can I just say: Irish Secret Society?
Well, no shit Professor. The tale of the Molly Maguires is a damn crime story. An Irish secret society. Detectives infiltrating said secret society. Murder and mayhem. And you want me to write about the economics? Nah. I’ll take that C, thanks.
My degree is in history and my passion for a connection with the past imbues every breath I take. I never forget, though, that what captivated me from the beginning was the Story — especially stories of men facing adversity in wild country. A sense of adventure set my moccasins on the trail, which eventually did lead me into the Dismal Swamps of Economics, out on the Seas of Diplomacy and out into the Great Political Desert. Adventure keeps me on the trail still.
Certainly, our cultural amnesia and the impulse to hide from or erase uncomfortable history is a sorry state of affairs. We need history. We need the wisdom gleaned from the experience of others; we need context and the sense of perspective that history grants us. But bitching about the decline of interest in history is bootless (and, yes, I’ve indulged in it). I just don’t think you can hector people into doing better.
The original Great War post has 2.8 million views. That’s a pretty good indication of interest. So is the fact that Indy has gone on to produce two more similar shows. My experience is that people ARE, in fact, interested in history — if it’s interesting. Is that too much to ask?
Come gather ’round me buckaroos, and a story I will tell…
There was a period where I watched a lot of the Great War videos.
Indy also does Sabaton History where he discusses the history behind the songs of the metal band Sabaton. Which shows that there is an audience for history. His latest video (on the Six Days War) he talks about how he tries to keep his videos apolitical. That’s in contrast to just about anything else by anyone nowadays.
A bit of the tangent, the Molly Maguires provided some of the backstory of The Valley of Fear by Arthur Conan Doyle. The Sherlock Holmes novels happen all in Britain for the most part but a lot of back story happens on the Frontiers of the world. Watson is an Afghanistan vet. A Study in Scarlet has backstory in the Mormon exodus. The Sign of the Four in India.
Did not know that.
A story I don’t like to tell, but this struck close to the heart.
https://thesmokeofathousandcampfires.blogspot.com/2019/05/they-paved-paradise-and-put-up-waterpark.html
I think Americans have always had a Goldfish sense of history created by our stenographer media and the way history is taught in schools. Education is focused on rote memorization of dates, skipping around, pretending history ends in 1963, and emphasizing mindless boosterism over critical thinking so that Americans are completely ignorant over critical issues events like Labor History, Reconstruction and Race issues, American Imperialism and resistance to it in Latin America and the far east.
It’s no shock that Americans will then accept lies such a that the Civil War was over tariffs or that the Irish were slaves.
Our human history is vital to understanding who we are and ideally, to avoid the same traps we can learn from the first time. I think the personal stories contained in historical war, law and accounts of unfiltered humanity given the current institutional disconnect, are more appealing and essential than ever. The honesty induced by the prospect of death or serious injury has a way of keeping things honest. Its pure.
The challenge for many of us is navigating the massive amounts of input, much of which is unnecessary in order to see our objective. Corporate news media is for the most part commercial and politically driven misinformation on both sides.
We tell our new cops, “Check your politics at the door, apply policy and the law compassionately and professionally and just tell the story of what actually happened”. The truth (“just the facts ma’am”) stands on it’s own regardless of what happens after.
The truth doesn’t seem to be the priority anymore and much of society is so medicated, triggered, and or so out of touch with who they are, I suspect the disconnect and distraction will continue.
Its why more and more of us say f*** it and move to the hills.…..
Me too.
Curiously, I have been on a Gore Vidal YouTube binge the last couple of weeks including the interview with him and Roy Cohn and of course the classic debates with William F. Buckley, Jr. Gore Vidal if anything is interesting as was his long life. Yes, he is as much a patrician as Buckley and at times just as pompous. However, he has lived and witnessed a great deal of American history as well as written about it. I probably watched 25 interviews as well as the UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA documentary. I also watched a very uncomfortable interview of him in Instanbul, Turkey where he was much more rude than witty. I forgive him. Nonetheless, he hits the mark more often than not in my opinion. Gore was way ahead of the curve when talking and writing about American Imperialism and is not afraid to remove the cloak of the misinformation of history. I recall somewhere a quote by someone saying that history is very interesting, but it just is not true. Maybe it is better off that way. Gore was no doubt a fly in the ointment for many. He led an unconventional life and a quite successful one financially and otherwise. He talks off the cuff a lot during many interviews and the facts can be somewhat malleable in his hands. He led a privileged life no doubt, but it was not a smooth ride at all times. I do think his cautionary words are worth heeding in that one should never take things at face value which is as true now as ever. He bemoaned Americans lack of real education in history and said it usually comes in dead last on most anyone’s list of interest due largely to the rote method of memorizing and regurgitating dates, etc. One of his favorite books is that of U.S. Grant’s autobiography. Much to be learned no doubt from both sides of the fence. As I just mentioned to someone today that the vision or eye of the seller and the eye of the buyer usually see the object of the transaction much differently. Keep both eyes and both ears open when traversing the territory of history. The accoutrements are interesting but they never reveal all the motives and means at hand. Tactics and strategy are ever changing. That’s what makes it interesting. History can be very interesting indeed if presented that way (as RIR attempts to do) but what does our American history teach in reality to all but the few who specialize in it? I do not think the founders could envision things as they are now nor had they really intended it for what we need now. I do believe even with it’s flawed beginnings that it can and should be adjusted accordingly, but the imbalance of agreement today might be so badly out of kilter that it’s almost impossible to imagine it’s correction. I don’t know if it’s the accuracy or inaccuracy of news today that bothers me most. I can say the same for History. I choose not to be apathetic, but for pragmatic reasons and for my own sanity, you have to be measured about what you consume. I don’t want to be either too one‐sided or too loose of foot. What I really want is inspiration along with lessons, skills, entertainment and awareness that does not smother my enthusiasm for life. History can be a dicey proposition that can take a lifetime to unravel and then you still end up starting all over again. The best you might get is a moment in time that takes something in you to that place where you can feel it in a way that resonates. Each to their own interest of course. Jim, one thing is for sure at RIR & FP is that you make every effort to keep it interesting and as accurate as is humanly possible. This is no mean feat and you have made the subject of History a noble cause.
I will finish with what I always say about the future: I have still not caught up with the past, let alone having any idea about the future. I just hope there is one. Someone else said the past has not gone anywhere. Perhaps this is no more true than at the RIR / FP digital outpost …
That reminds me I REALLY need to check out Vidal’s fiction books like Burr, Julian or Creation
Burr is very good.
Yes it is, along with other of his historical fictions. If anything Vidal makes things interesting which historical fiction allows. He still aims for a higher truth and is not timid about stepping on toes in the process. Just as his being interesting has thwarted his political ambitions it has also made him a compelling character. Vidal makes history both palpable and palatable unless of course you prefer it dry. If you know his personal history it definitely adds more to his credibility with him having been a direct witness. For example his close association with his grandfather Senator Gore who was blind. He became his reader. He witnessed on a car ride to the senate the striking WW I veterans who were striking for bonuses and looking like skeletons, when they recognized his grandfather (who did not believe in giving anything to anyone) and started to pummel their car with rocks. He realized then that revolution was a real possibility. It appears a reality that the pursuit of life, liberty and property was the real basis of the founding fathers. A republic to protect those of property and position. They were not hiding it. It was all in plain sight and if taken in the context of the times it is understandable. A starting point. An infancy if you will. As Jefferson said, and I paraphrase it, you do not expect a full grown man to wear boy’s clothes do you? As always of course as the tired cliche goes, do not throw out the baby with the bath water either. I don’t intend to bury and obscure our infancy good, bad or indifferent. I don’t dismiss history out of hand either, if you make it interesting and worthwhile. If you subscribe to wars and empire as glorious endeavors you must at least admit to the realities of it and it’s affects on everyone. Take it for what it’s worth from General Smedley Butler and his book WAR IS A RACKET (and others) from one who should know about our beginnings of becoming an empire. I won’t moan on with platitudes or moralizing, but who do we think we are fooling with half truths and complete lies. I realize the truth is a contentious battle and serious historians attempt to parse that out. In the mean time as you say Jim at least “keep it interesting” and if that becomes a blend of purposeful mythology and truth that serves a greater purpose then I’m all for it. Truth that serves a greater good is the only worthwhile truth. Facts can be manipulated to a lesser truth. I guess that leaves it at a [qualified] history that must be stated. Have fun with that proposition. Entertaining and interesting might be the most important qualifier for me…
“Take it for what it’s worth from General Smedley Butler and his book WAR IS A RACKET (and others) from one who should know about our beginnings of becoming an empire.”
If theres any book that should be required reading for Americans, it that, along with James Loewen’s Lies My Teacher told me and Lies Across America
Jim, I have been meaning to ask you if the professor, G. William Domhoff was before your time or not at UC Santa Cruz and if you are familiar with his work?
Domhoff was there, I believe, but I never encountered him. Not really familiar with him other than that he was a big name there.
You mentioned that “big fat C” as if it were a bad thing! I was always thrilled to get as high a mark as a “C”! Just sayin’.….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPQrCMadE1U
Chasing the Light
Craig and Jim — You both came to mind as I watched this piece from Jeff Bednarz, on Texan Wyman Meinzer. Another man who laid down the firearm for the camera.
“Ive been able to maintain this life of independence freedom, because it was instilled in me a long time ago. I think out of shear hard‐headedness and willingness to endure and maintain the lifestyle I have known, its kept me as kind of a free spirit.”
HIs best quote of the piece — “You need to be at Z at my point in life.”
Here is to finding “Z”.
That’s a great piece.
Ditto on “ That’s a great piece” TJ.
The summer issue of RANGE MAGAZINE just arrived and it is one of their most interesting. Besides a feature article by Tom Russell there are great photos from photo contest winners. They also bring up the sticky issue of wolves and ranchers. I never try to come to hastily arrived at conclusions on anything when time allows. It’s hard to find more in common these days than not.,Theodore Roosevelt said nature does not make mistakes, so you know the answer to that. Tom Russell’s sister‐in‐law Claudia Russell has her own take as a long time ranching woman trying to co‐exist with it as is the main premise of the article. Can there be a win win strategy? I pretty much doubt that. How about a reasonable compromise? I doubt that too. What’s left? Bad news. Phony news. No news. What you see at the end of your nose. As so many times in history it will be decided for us and not by us. You just have to make your way through it or around it from A‐Z and maybe back again…
Here’s one for you from WW II with interviews from those that were there. Look for the mention of what became a title for a recent
WW I film along with some philosophical conclusions. It is very much worth the viewing in my humble opinion.
Tirpitz sunk by Lancasters:
https://youtu.be/7Exst44CyG0
Thanks ST. I’ll hit the library fro the new RANGE. We’re starting to see considerable conflict re: wolves in Oregon. As you note — no simple “answers.”
Spoke to a hunter and conservationist in North Idaho re the wolves. His explanation of the moose killers transplanted from out of state and what they are doing to the elk, deer and others was super interesting. He is a wolf fan in the context of a native, balanced population.
Equally interesting was his account of what’s really going on in the field on both sides. What happens in the woods — stays in the woods.
The big male Grizzlies staying up all winter in the west to steal wolf kills; Mountain Lion siblings staying together longer to deal with the dogs and even the Coyotes changing it up.
The whole sale extermination of any species; over‐ranged wild lands from domestic livestock; agricultural / industrial pollution; fragmented habitat and the fact we did a lot of ignorant destructive s**t years ago (still do, but we know better), will take a long time to improve.
The natives were probably the best sustainable conservationists and we would do well to adhere to their connection to the earth. Almost every cultural religion adheres to the respect of our natural resources.
Well said TJ and I agree. Thanks!
Uh oh–wolf controversy.…That usually means I’ll be wearing my right index finger to a nub! But what EVERYONE involved(I mean TRULY involved, like in having wolves on yer property) SHOULD read Carter Neimeyer’s book “Wolfer”–both the pro‐wolf people, and the wolf haters. This is the guy they called in for many years(I think he’s retired now) to “control” problem wolves, and to identify when domestic stock killed really was killed by wolves(in most cases, it WASN’T). A very balanced, eye‐opening account. Wolves CAN be damaging, but most of their damage is exaggerated or misidentified. Regardless, this is a blunt, FACTUAL book on the subject, that doesn’t make wolf control or population expansion a “them‐or‐us” kinda deal, like so many on both sides of this issue tend to think.….
Lane as always your perspective is a highly qualified one. As I said nature is infallible so to speak and blameless for practical reasons. They react whereas we make strategic choices at controlling by whatever means chosen. There is a big difference in locations let’s say compared to the vast wilds of Alaska and other remote locales. We have tipped the balance so far the other way in more humanly heavily populated and unprepared areas. We seem to be wanting absolute safety and convenience at the cost of nature. In the RANGE MAGAZINE article written by a biologist with 35 years experience he leans strongly against the naïveté of the predation aspects of wolves that he feels those from afar are ignorant of. Without going to extensively in my opinions I will conclude that we have created a helluva mess with plenty of guilt to go around. How to we insert ourselves into nature with no damage to the balance of nature. Nature is amoral in my opinion. It’s up to us to allow a coexistence. Are we going to kill off all of the sharks and rid them from the oceans? The article also attempts to make a strong case on the unprovoked wolf attacks on humans. I have always had a long lasting memory of Jack London’s CALL OF THE WILD and WHITE FANG since I first read them around 12 years of age continuing my love and respect for nature even more so. Who crossed the borders in the first place? It’s that simple or that complicated. Take your choice. This carries over into every other threat to our planet and us. Nature will always triumph in the end and if we forget that it is to our own peril. Save nature to save ourselves. I am afraid we are heading full speed ahead in the wrong direction, but I am merely a toothpick caught in a log jam…
A few weeks ago I sat down and read every wolf attack report from my home country in Lassen County, California, from the last few years. The Lassen Pack is an off‐shoot of OR‐7, who travelled from Imnaha across Oregon, down into NE California, then back to southern Oregon where — surprise! — he found a mate where there were allegedly no wolves. They have made several litters now, and one of those displaced males established the Lassen Pack. The reports are illuminating. Not all of the calf‐lamb kills could be proven to be wolf‐kills, but most could. Ranchers would be more eager to help with wolves if the compensation was quicker and easier to obtain. A great read on this subject is Quammen’s Monster of God, which posits that hunting endangered species can help them to survive by engaging the local population in a financial reward for their conservation. It has worked in various places — bears in Romania, Marco Polo Sheep, and elsewhere. Incidentally, I took a 3‐Day fishing trip down the Lower Deschutes last week where I learned that wolves on the Warm Springs reservation have been seen by anglers in the river, chasing deer across the magnificent canyon. I once travelled into the Blue Mountains of New Mexico/Arizona in search of wolves with a pal. We didn’t see them. But I did see one last fall in eastern Oregon, on an elk hunting trip. Magnificent creatures.
Excellent read. Second the recommendation. Our District Forest Service man here is a friend of Niemeyer, and went wolf tagging with him. Interesting fellows both.
The underlying issue is always human population. Too many of us, not enough of the other. That’s the way it works.
There it is my Friend
http://www.rangemagazine.com/
Looks interesting — might have to check this out?
Okay, I read the “Range Magazine” article on wolves, and of all the many, many, many pro‐ vs.-anti wolf things I have ever read, this has to rank with THE WORST EVER! No need to get yer facts straight these days! Maybe our current politicians(BOTH sides!!!) have something to do with influencing the general public this way! Just throw out any numbers and make up whatever you want, and exaggerate things all beyond reality to get folks to side with YOUR opinion! You don’t have to be anywhere NEAR the facts of the matter anymore! Either this guy is a blatant liar(twisting the actual facts as he has), or he has quoted(without checking for facts–maybe because he doesn’t really care about the facts) someone else that has little qualms about outright LYING! First, there has NOT been over a hundred documented attacks and FIFTY fatalities from wolves in North America! I read and keep up with anything and everything about this subject, and all I’ve ever seen–DOCUMENTED PROVEN attacks–there have only been TWO–both on joggers jogging in an area(with nothing to protect themselves–something I would NEVER do in any area with large predators, or even loose neighborhood dogs!). Tall tales of hunters/hikers SCARED by wolves(because they usually know ZILCH about their real behavior, or have been inaccurately influenced by articles like this, or movies like that idiotic “The Grey”) DO NOT constitute “attacks”. If wolves WERE so inclined to attack people, you would have a set of statistics that would be undeniable! Such accounts would be PLASTERED across Nationwide News and milked like nobody’s business! And you WOULD have heard about them! Early settlers(and natives) did NOT have a major problem with wolves, except when they brought livestock into wolf areas. And then it was attacking livestock(sometimes), NOT people! Mountain men and Indians were very complacent about wolves, and this author’s statement that Lewis and Clark were attacked by them is blatantly FALSE! They WERE attacked by grizzlies(usually after they shot and wounded them!), but NOT wolves–I’ve read(and reread) the Lewis and Clark journals–they mention how TAME the wolves were, and how numerous, but ZERO attacks. His comments on wolves in Europe have some truth to them, but when you research those(as I have done), you find out that despite some truth, most are exaggerated, or just about impossible to verify, they have become so much of the folklore. I’m not denying it HAS happened, but there are usually very specific circumstances leading up to such incidents–all the large game has been killed off in an area, and wolves have ONLY livestock and/or people to eat, and the peasant populations, not allowed to keep weapons, have little means to defend themselves. And it is not widespread throughout entire populations of wolves–just some individuals, and some packs. That is the TRUTH of the matter. Which brings us to another odd prejudice regarding wolves as potential predators of humans–cougars and bears have attacked and/or killed FAR MORE people, on a regular, documented basis, than wolves ever have, yet you never hear the same level of fear propaganda fomented about them. These areas where people are afraid for their kids at bus stops because of a new wolf presence, have had both cougar and bear presences for DECADES, that few ever complain about! So WHY is that? Some point to the status of wolves as endangered species–but it is A MYTH that you are not allowed to protect your livestock or human safety if it is EVER threatened. You can. LOOK IT UP! People that get in trouble for killing wolves LIE about such things to keep from getting into trouble, and foment sympathy. Ranchers OFTEN have LIED (or just aren’t good at identifying WHAT killed their livestock) when reporting wolf kills. You WON’T get compensation if your neighbor’s dogs kill or maul your stock(and this happens ALL THE TIME! It happens constantly in areas where there are NO WOLVES at all!), or yer neglected stock die of disease or accidents, and maybe get scavenged by predators. Carter Neimeyer, in his book “Wolfer” describes incident after incident where wolves were NOT involved at all, it was just neglect and ignorance on the part of the ranchers. Ditto for others sent to “control” wolves. THIS is why it is such a pain‐in‐the‐arse to get compensated–because of all the dishonest or just ignorant people out there trying to take advantage of the situation. Which IS unfair for the legit complaints, but that’s how things go–dishonest people screwing it up for everyone else. Neimeyer also flatly states he never met ANYONE who actually went out of business because of wolf predation. And the author of this terribly infactual article tries to make it like it is urban people against the poor, down‐trodden rural folk–and that is also patently untrue! MANY rural folk, including some ranchers, are THRILLED to have wolves back, and poll after poll, in rural and urban areas, show the majority of citizens in favor of wolf recolonization in many places. Sure, wolves can’t be allowed everywhere, but there ARE many more places they could populate, to the completeness of those ecosystems. This author’s present wolf population numbers were also OFF THE CHARTS in exaggeration(and IF true, AND with wolves’ supposed tendency–according to him–to attack humans, we should have quite the death toll by now! Funny how such inaccurate articles can contradict themselves.…..but does anyone else notice?). Wolves WERE endangered in the lower 48–ONLY MINNESOTA had a decent breeding population when they were put on the Endangered species list back in 1974. Being completely exterminated from 47 of the lower 48 is a bit more than just not being present in former areas of their range! He also does not take into account unique subspecies, like the Mexican wolf, which is STILL endangered. Gosh, just SO MUCH wrong with this tripe of an article–hard to even begin to cover it all–absolute TRIPE! I was hoping for something more balanced and factual, but this bit of media trash is off the charts in ignorant, or just biased prejudice. It is every bit as unrealistic and stupid as the story he opened with, with some unrealistic bunny hugger calling and harassing a rancher–IF that even actually happened! There are so many other lies throughout this article(don’t take my word for it! Do some FACT CHECKING of yer own!) I highly doubt anything reported in it. Read Carter Neimeyer’s book to get a REAL, balanced view(Neimeyer is NOT anti‐rancher by any means!) if you REALLY want to know the truth of this incredibly skewed controversy.….There is NO other critter that people get more crazy and unrealistic about than wolves!
.…and another thing–had to let my right index finger recover a bit–since this author had numerous photos of poor, mangled, mutilated cows(a common ploy to horrify readers and get their sympathy), and the stereotypic comment of them killing something and “leaving it to rot”–what old, tiresome, ignorant tactics–but they tend to work, which is why they are stock in trade for such a biased, anti‐wolf article. I do not dispute the fact that poor, ripped up cattle is indeed a sad thing to witness, and definitely cruel to the cattle, but SPARE ME the hypocritical, shocked concern for the welfare of livestock that is being raised as food anyway, and many(especially from anyone raising cattle as a business, as opposed to just providing homestead meat) are put through all manner of terrible stress and pain and fear sent to the knackers when it’s butchering time, and plenty of stories of cattle(and other animals) just stunned, not completely dead, and cut open while still kickin’. I’m a meat eater–but I still cringe at some of the horror stories I hear about large scale slaughterhouses, and the callous abuses that go on there, so just cry‐me‐a‐river when someone shows photos of cattle mutilated by predators that have four legs instead of just two–definitely a case of the kettle calling the pot black!.…Then there’s the dumb statement of “they just left it to rot”(incidentally, I think I have read, for just about every predator out there, the rote comment on how they are the ONLY other predator–besides man, that is–that “kills just for sport”–which is okay‐fine when it’s bipedal primates–but nothing else!). Well DUH. They wouldn’t have just left it if humans hadn’t INTERFERED. OF COURSE a rancher or farmer is going to interfere, that’s their BUSINESS(literally), but the predator involved would prefer they didn’t, so they could finish their meal in peace! IF such commentators knew anything about predators like wolves, and how they operate(which they either don’t, or just don’t let on), is that they often kill something, and either eat a bit, or maybe leave and rest, or go fetch other pack members to eat(like young out of the den) and come back later to eat. A huge animal like a grown cow is NOT going to be consumed in one sitting by hardly anything–even a large grizzly with grown cubs! A very large pack of wolves might make some serious inroads on a whole cow, but your typical wolf pack is going to eat on such an animal a week or more(something verified in every wolf study that has ever been done of what wolves do with large prey they bring down, be it deer, elk, moose, caribou, bison, or domestic cattle). But especially if only a few wolves were involved(five or so–your more typical pack), they will come back to a kill until there is nothing left but well gnawed bones–they waste nothing! Some predators–especially bears–actually seem to prefer rotten meat, maggots and all. They have a far different perspective of this than modern civilized humans do. Ditto for surplus killing–they are NOT being wasteful, just taking advantage of any situation to stockpile food that they can–it’s just that with wild ungulates, they don’t get the many, easy chances they do with tame, helpless, often fenced stock. Of course this is just common frikking sense, which no one with any kind of sense would try and convince others it was because some predator was evil or consciously being wasteful–unless you are writing an anti‐wolf article and you want to employ the elementary, guaranteed knee‐jerk reactions from ignorant people. Which is what an article like this is trying to do. Inaccurate, twisted propaganda to the core.…..
Lane,
As always I appreciate your passion, honesty and straight forward approach and would never expect less. TJ’s thoughtful comments are equally appreciated along with Craig’s. I do not think any of you are trying to do the wrong thing. First and foremost we cannot blame a wolf for being a wolf. Obviously opinions vary on the wolf. I think more than anything you stand for the ancestral spirit of nature and proper balance and the truth. Facts misconstrued or skewed towards a certain outcome are fair game to be challenged. Motives must be considered. You point that out very well. The article no doubt leans towards there being a “wolf problem” that if not kept in check will only worsen and become more problematic in the future if left unchecked. I say we (us humans) are the problem. What to do? Your passionate and diametrically opposed position calls for truthful and accurate data. I would agree. However, not being an expert as to how truly the wolf is being maligned in this challenging debate I cannot say with numbers to back me up. My gut instinct says it fits in with all the other politics of the day. The invaders are at our border. The wolf is at the door. As I said before nature teaches us, we do not teach nature. Hybridization has it’s equal benefit and risk. I take what I will or not from RANGE MAGAZINE. Indians, Cowboys and Dogs resonate with me along with many other things. That also includes trying to understand where people are coming from on any chosen issues. Some times it scares the hell out of me. Life’s dilemma no doubt. That’s why I blame us humans and leave nature as amoral and blameless. There used to be a lot more room for all of us, so human population has increased the problems greatly. I guess nature will eventually work that out too. It may not be pretty. Back to wolf. We must have fair and accurate information in defense of the wolf who cannot hire a lawyer or politician to help them. For my money the heart of the wolf issue is who get’s priority treatment, humans or wolves. That is the start and end of the argument. I read some synopsis’s of both WOLFER and MONSTER OF GOD and those are both excellent starting points on the subject. I guess this is all stems from being exiled from the garden so to speak. The battle for survival. It’s complicated as hell for sure and fraught with hypocrisy and political and environmental challenges. Who or what get’s eliminated first? Only so many seats on the lifeboat…
Didn’t read the article yet. It sucks there are no wolves or grizzlies in California anymore (I know, one wandered in).
I like the wilderness wild at the end of the day and like everything else, the truth can be elusive.
I prefer wild or local meat anyhow and although we need our ranchers and farmers, the kill all the wolves / cats and don’t ever kill a wolf / cat hysteria gets old.
Not gonna lie either in what the cattle have done to parts of the Sequoia National Forrest (water pollution and habitat trampling, not to mention giant piles of cow s**t everywhere — sucks…
These high country cattle have nothing to worry about except falling off the trail. They are big, powerful and nasty. Probably delicious too.
The Canadian moose eating wolves according to my hunter friend have evolved to be larger and in many cases eat only a small portion of multiple elk. He is reasonable and I trust him.
The fear of being eaten by a wolf or Mountain Lion justifying killing them in mass is stupid. It happens rarely; they are big alpha predators so stay out of the wilderness or foothills if wild animals scare you.
I’ve had five interactions with cats on/off duty including trapping one in a back yard. Guaranteed I’m watched every night ride alone on my mountain bike. They are not roaming around waiting to kill humans.
More dogs kill people. Bees? Hippos?Hospitals? Tweekers? Sigh.….
https://www.independent.com/2017/05/12/dog-mauling-victim-speaks-out/
I was the supervisor for this. The two biggest dogs were literally eating the woman and they both took full Ketamine darts and kept coming. Powerful, beautiful animals. That’s us in the front making our “Plan.”
It’s funny how so many of the experts never spend time hunting, hiking, ranching, or out there at all.
I wish I wouldn’t get so aggravated with really bad, inaccurate, and biased anti‐wolf stuff like that–I could debate far more convincingly, probably, if I could keep my personal feelings out of it–but on THAT subject–WOLVES– it is hard(for all parties involved!) Regarding your hunter friend, and just small amounts eaten from many elk–did he monitor the carcasses all Winter(or whenever he saw them)? His presence alone might have run the wolves off, but I bet they came back! They tend to take a week or more to finish off such big carcasses–certainly longer–even weeks–if they pull down several at one time(a rarity in the wild with most large, formidable prey). One scenario where wolves have been(or perhaps still ARE) terribly wasteful, is where they have been exposed to POISONING campaigns. Even though illegal in most places now, it DOES still go on.… In the Old West, the only wolves that long survived, were those that learned not to scavenge, and to only eat one meal from anything they themselves killed, making their destruction of livestock horrendously more than it would have been. But HUMANS created that set of circumstances–it is NOT normal wolf behavior.….And some subspecies up North ARE CONSIDERABLY larger, as were the old “buffalo wolves” on the Northern Great Plains in the U. S. A.–many believe the Buffalo Wolves subspecies(“nubilus”) is extinct, but just look at any of the documentaries(some SPLENDID ones out now!) of the wolves hunting buffalo in Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada–those wolves are HUGE!.… And yes, anyone in ANY large predator territory MUST keep that in mind(their presence and the potential threat) at all times, ESPECIALLY if you are jogging/running or mountain biking, and moving in such a way as to trigger predatory pursuit instincts! But so few keep this in mind. A MIRACLE, in my opinion, there HAVEN’T been more attacks(from wolves, cougars, and bears) than there are! AND, in my opinion, take SOME kind of weapon to defend yourself. You’ll probably never need it(the odds being what they are), but I think the confidence just HAVING such a weapon with you gives you an air and stance that telegraphs “I am not prey”. Plus the far more likelihood you’ll need a weapon to protect yourself against OTHER HUMANS! And the whole dogs‐killing‐people statistics–yeah, exactly. And you don’t typically see these biased articles villifying ALL DOGS like this article did wolves, because many people KNOW dogs, in a way most people don’t know wolves, which is why the anti‐wolf faction can get away with such B. S. easier. Of course, ONE exception regarding prejudice against dogs, and that of course is the present cultural “bad dog” so many love to villify(inaccurately)–Pit Bull terriers! It WAS Rottweilers, before that Dobermans, before that German Shepherds, and, believe it or not, in the late 1800’s early 1900’s “Bloodhounds”!!! And another perspective involving dogs and wolves and livestock mauling and killing. Dogs do it all the time, FAR MORE than wolves(and in Niemeyer’s book, he brings that up), but no one writes articles villifying ALL dogs for this, because people OBVIOUSLY know all dogs don’t go around mauling livestock–many would never even consider it! People understand that, because so many people understand dogs. Well, if you REALLY KNOW wolves, you KNOW it is the same with them–the majority DO NOT cause problems like that, and just like individual dogs, they are not necessarily going to AUTOMATICALLY become domestic stock killers given the opportunity. If they WERE inclined to ALWAYS be that way, you’d have REAL statistics to back it up that not even a wolf‐hugger like myself could refute!
There are two large and established packs in California. The Lassen and Siskiyous packs are both very much alive, very much in California, and very active.
Wasn’t aware of that. Good or bad depending on who you talk to I guess.
Listening to them in Stanley Idaho near Yankee Fork a few years ago was haunting. Probably why the elk visited our cabin each night.
We tracked a group, tracking elk from the cabin, to the summit. I’m sure they knew where we were. It was my Father’s Day Gift from the boys.
Great points and replies appreciated Lane and S.T.
I didn’t mean to turn this into the Wolf Forum, but it’s one of the great things about this free‐form unfiltered format they provide us.
One of my Mountian Lion stories in a feeble attempt to illustrate my larger point. Craig — my standard disclaimer for the pending grammar and sentence murder.
Mid‐Morning — I walked into a residential backyard in the middle of incorporated SB expecting to find prints, poop or a combination of, indicating a Bobcat visit. It was another Mountain Lion call. Five seconds after walking through the side yard, a medium sized Tom walks out from behind some bushes, Coyote trots past me to within about fifteen feet and hisses. He walks back up to the corner about 20–30 feet up and lays down.
I’m pretty sure I said “Awesome!” as the homeowners peered through their patio window. My preference was to leave him there or chase him into the creek via the front exit of the house. The fence design in the back and terrain made jumping over even for him, impossible. And then it began.…. F&G; local vet; crowd control; school lock‐down; golf course clearing; angry lion activist nearly getting arrested, the nervous police lieutenant.
Additionally, F&G had recently killed two (one or two — I don’t remember) young cats near San Fran Ca (probably unnecessarily) which started a s***-show, so their managers were super paranoid of being involved with a running gun battle involving a Moutain Lion and the cops. I had zero intention of shooting this cat. I even reassigned one of my cops to crowd control who I am convinced, was dreaming of the newspaper headlines reading, “Hero Cop Kills Man‐Eating Lion!” Great kid and I honestly think he beleived this cat, was just waiting to kill and devour humans.
So, I spend about 30 minutes alone in the backyard with this cat and at one point, I start talking to him as he stared back at me, laying at his side intermittently licking his paws. Something like, “Sorry buddy, I know you were just headed back to the hills.” The dart finally gets there. The F&G guy standing next to me hits him in the flank and he runs right at us, my guess with the intent to run through, or by us. I yelled at him like I do when I want my 104 pound Amerian Bulldog to stop destroying something and he stopped about 10 feet away, turned and ran directly into a wood fence with a crash. The fence didn’t give. He turned back around on us, his legs started wobbling from the dart (Ketamine I think), he gave me one more WTF look and fell over like a drunk.
The vet squared him away, they relocated the young Tom back to the mountains and hopefully, the resident male didn’t kill him before he had a chance to get out of his territory. The news photo of me in uniform; cop glasses; cop stance; arms appropriately pumped from holding my .223 at low ready for half an hour and the caption below, represented a complete 180 of the narrative going in my head. I was probably closer to harming a human than that cat and more concerned for his safety. Hilarious in reflection and to that point, my opinion on the facts based truth especially regarding wild nature.
The elements of the actual truth are simultaneously basic, layered and full of exceptions. Add politics, money, lying human nature and agenda, well‐meaning and lack of understanding, or experience — its to be expected we get emotional and frustrated. Truth and reason exist in most opposing positions and some of the human v wild conflicts will always exist for a hundred reasons. The bigger issue in my observation on/off duty is what is happening to the humans on this beautiful planet entrusted to us and the impact it’s having on all of us whether you walk on four, or two legs.
I should have chased him out of the yard after a selfie for proof and cleared the call GOA (gone on arrival).….
Great story!
http://www.sulphurdailynews.com/news/wolves-kill-three-dozen-sheep-on-park-falls-farm/article_ca3a3d25-71fd-5c93-aa72-f548996ccb0c.html
If I was this rancher I would be pretty upset..
“*** A pack of wolves returned after a three‐year hiatus to kill three dozen sheep on a farm north of Park Falls on Monday.
“Paul and Judy Canik woke Monday morning to find 31 of their Katahdin lambs and five adult females had been killed by wolves sometime between midnight and 6 a.m.
“Evidently we were sleeping too sound and didn’t hear the dogs,” Paul said. “They usually bark loud enough to alert us whenever the wolves are around.”
The couple has several Spanish Mastiff guard dogs on the farm to help ward off predators, but since wolves killed two of the expensive purebreds a few years ago, the couple keep the dogs penned at night.
This is the second time the Caniks have suffered a large loss of sheep from their farm. In 2016, wolves, potentially of the same pack, killed 17 of their bighorn sheep, valued at $1,200 each. “***
Yep, pretty bad if you are a rancher and have that happen to you‐ Surplus killing? Wolves like to kill, they a’int putting those sheeps in the fridge.
Some years back a Cougar got killed on a military base‐ the base game rangers put him on a concrete pylon behind the hospital. The nurses came out and were doing selfies with him and touching him. I was thinking “what big fangs you got Grandma”
Wild hog got killed and brought in too‐ no nurse took a selfie with him. lol.
CNN? on topic‐ have to wonder if those idiots believe the fake news they spew out of their pie holes 24–7? or if they laugh about it when they get off the air.
Agreed — that’s a really hard hit given most ranches are struggling at best. I would like to understand conclusively why they engage in the large scale killings. Did the native species engage in that behavior?
I get the easy sheep meal, territory and the like, but there must be some instinctive, adaptive or learned process on the mass killing without consumption?
Many predators, given the chance, indulge in “surplus killing”. The term “surplus killing” IS a HUMAN definition, and not understood by the predators themselves, I’m sure. Humans indulge in the same, but call it ‘sport” in defining their own behavior! No doubt some DEEP SEATED instincts are involved(in us, too), but basically, it boils down to, as a predator, catching, overpowering, and killing most wild prey species is not normally easy, and that in itself limits killings. So you kill all you can whenever you can–you never know if you’ll get the opportunity later! This limiting factor is removed regarding overly domesticated stock that cannot outrun or outfight predators, on top of which they are often confined to small enclosures where they cannot get away or hide. And in the case of humans, clever tactics(running large herds of ungulates over cliffs, for example), or superior weaponry that makes killing easy and safe. TOO easy and safe! No question predators of all kinds experience some sort of thrill and excitement in the process of hunting and killing, and just get carried away with the behavior. But one problem with the perception of WASTE, and “killing without consumption” that is erroneous, is that GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, probably little of any kills would be “wasted”. As mentioned above, wild predators have no qualms eating even fairly rotten meat. MOST predators scavenge as well as eat from fresh kills of their own. They will keep coming back to kills even weeks afterward, gnawing bones and eating even dried bits of hide. In Northern climates, where frozen meat does not rot, such multiple kills could feed predators all Winter. A real survival boon! But of course, when killing domestic stock, predators are NOT going to be allowed to keep returning and benefiting from their destructive(in human eyes) activities! But they WOULD, given the chance–hence why it was so easy to POISON many predators initially, when they are still naive to the concept of poison. But the surviving, more intelligent ones LEARN, and this makes them MORE destructive, eating ONLY from one of their own fresh kills, and only taking ONE MEAL from each, causing them to kill far more than they ordinarily would. This is why some of the trap‐wise, poison‐wise “outlaw” wolves of the Old west were so hard to kill–some of them were NEVER killed, but lived their lives out surviving everything done to exterminate them. Anyway, taking such behavior and dramatizing it as if somehow the wolves(or other predators) are just somehow pointlessly wasteful, is just skewed propaganda to illicit knee‐jerk responses from the general public, who don’t understand the “WHY” behind such behavior. And the falsehood that ALL WOLVES will do likewise given the opportunity is just flat out WRONG–many wolves live in and among livestock and never learn to molest it(or perhaps because THEY HAVE LEARNED NOT to molest it!) So sure, take out (“control”) the troublemakers when necessary, but do not inaccurately try to label ALL wolves and predators as “problems”–that is simply NOT TRUE. IF large(or any!) predators are to be allowed, humans just have to learn to live with them–give and take. Some humans just want to exterminate ALL predators, regardless, and write inaccurate, dumb articles like this to try and sway(with over exaggerated crap) the general public to their viewpoint. Hopefully, they will not prevail(says I, who wish to keep predators around!) as they have in past history. An interesting perspective on this, from a Chinese novel(“Wolf Totem”–also a great movie!) about the nomadic Mongols who live closely with wolves that regularly take some of their livestock–an old wise character stated that Tenger(God) made wolves, partly, to control the numbers of human livestock, which greedy individuals would allow to multiply beyond the ability of the land to support them(over grazing–which is a real problem everywhere where human livestock raising occurs!)–a view I wholeheartedley agree with! But on a comment above about “Did the native species engage in that behavior?” The wolves discussed are the SAME species–perhaps no more difference than subspecies, and being from the same general area and ecosystems, basically the same wolves. Don’t buy into that OTHER bit of inaccurate, contrived propaganda that the wolves reintroduced to our West from Canada were somehow not the same animal. Just another tactic used to try and vilify the efforts of reintroduction, that goes against history, that goes against actual science, and that goes against basic common sense. But still manages to influence those that don’t know better! But such tactics are par‐for‐the‐course in today’s politics–you don’t have to be accurate, just so long as you sway people to YOUR viewpoint, honesty and facts don’t matter! A sad state of affairs, in my opinion.…
Just reading the Spring Issue of HOOVER DIGEST magazine that includes an interview with Sebastian Junger titled LONERS AND LOST TRIBES based on Junger’s 2016 book titled TRIBE: ON HOMECOMING AND BELONGING.
This may have some application on how individuals and the group (tribe) which is all of us get along in order to thrive. This also addresses those with direct physical threats to them. An interesting interview that goes into the necessity of group dynamics for survival and for thriving. Yes, HOOVER DIGEST is a very conservative periodical but always includes interesting subject matter that are well written and presented. They also always have great graphics pulled from the Hoover Archives at Stanford. I take it where I find it. Also, I try to abide by this thought before proceeding into unavoidable conflict that being that to defeat others is the starting point of hatred and vengeance. You must be prepared to pick up the other half of it. What then will be Mother Nature’s revenge as we try to conquer and defeat her? Therein lies our dilemma. That is why I asked in the beginning as to what our priorities are (and for whom). What is truly rational or irrational? Is it all down to the individual or to the group? Can it be divided up equitably? That’s one for the ages that Junger tries to takes a shot at. Lots of other interesting articles in this issue as well…
Interesting. Junger is very good.
Another perhaps to your interest if unaware. There was also an interview with historian Andrew Roberts whose biography is number 1,010 of Churchill biographies, but with the important caveat that he is the first biographer allowed by the queen to use her father’s diaries. They are kept in the Royal Archives in the Round Tower at Windsor Castle. The King had lunch with Churchill every Tuesday of the Second World War and kept good diaries. Another new wrinkle unfolds…
That’s probably worth checking out…