Preserving game in war zones

Implementation

Some scientist have proposed that American Indian warfare played a critical ecological role by regulating and maintaining both the numbers and distribution of bison and other big animals of the West before descendants of Europeans settled it Basically, according to this "war zone" theory, Indian hunters were so proficient that in an individual tribe's homeland, populations of big game like bison and elk seriously declined and in some cases disappeared But in several big buffer zones between warring tribes, where hunters were loath to spend much time lest their enemies attack them, big game found more safety and flourished These no-man's-lands functioned, in effect, as game preserves

Claim

According to the Lewis and Clark journals from 1804 to 1806, a great wedge of territory stretching for 46,000 square miles across the eastern two-thirds of what is now Montana, between the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, was an important war zone. This region is commonly regarded by historians, biologists and TV producers alike as the very essence of 'wild' America.

In fact, the plenitude of bison and other game in the war zones reflected the status of the area as a buffer zone, where war parties of various tribes or nations were ever at hand, and anyone hunting, processing and drying meat might be killed by enemies.

Counter-claim

There have not been more bison in war zones than elsewhere; the ecology of the plains remained static. In fact, the bison were highly migratory, and would probably have migrated out of war zones.

On a more fundamental level, the war zone theory implies that humans are a force outside nature, that their impact is unnatural and therefore undesirable. However, humans are an integral part of nature, one of many forces that have long kept the natural world in a constant state of flux.