From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_domestic_violence Christianity and domestic violence deals with the debate in Christian communities about the recognition and response to domestic violence,
which is complicated by a culture of silence and acceptance among abuse
victims. There are some Bible verses that abusers use to justify
discipline of their wives.
Christian groups and authorities generally condemn domestic violence as inconsistent with the general Christian duty to love others and to the scriptural relationship between husband and wife.
Relationship between husband and wife
According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
"Men who abuse often use Ephesians 5:22, taken out of context, to
justify their behavior, but the passage (v. 21-33) refers to the mutual
submission of husband and wife out of love for Christ. Husbands should
love their wives as they love their own body, as Christ loves the
Church."
Some Christian theologians, such as the Rev. Marie Fortune and
Mary Pellauer, have raised the question of a close connection between
patriarchal Christianity and domestic violence and abuse.
Steven Tracy, author of "Patriarchy and Domestic Violence" writes:
"While patriarchy may not be the overarching cause of all abuse, it is
an enormously significant factor, because in traditional patriarchy
males have a disproportionate share of power... So while patriarchy is
not the sole explanation for violence against women, we would expect
that male headship would be distorted by insecure, unhealthy men to
justify their domination and abuse of women."
Few empirical studies have examined the relationship between religion and domestic violence. According to Dutton, no single-factor explanation for wife assault was sufficient to explain the available data.
A study by Dutton and Browning in the same year found that misogyny is
correlated with only a minority of abusive male partners.
Campbell's study in 1992 found no evidence of greater violence towards
women in more patriarchal cultures. Pearson's study in 1997 observed,
"Studies of male batterers have failed to confirm that these men are
more conservative or sexist about marriage than nonviolent men".
Responding to Domestic Abuse, a report issued by the
Church of England in 2006, suggests that patriarchy should be replaced
rather than reinterpreted: "Following the pattern of Christ means that
patterns of domination and submission are being transformed in the
mutuality of love, faithful care and sharing of burdens. 'Be subject to
one another out of reverence for Christ'(Ephesians 5.21). Although
strong patriarchal tendencies have persisted in Christianity, the
example of Christ carries the seeds of their displacement by a more
symmetrical and respectful model of male–female relations."
Bible verses
are often used to justify domestic abuse, such as those that refer to
male superiority and female submission. Others counter that the use of
violence is a misinterpreted view of the male role. For instance, Eve (Genesis 2-3), is seen by some Christians
to be disobedient to patriarchal God and man, and to many a generalized
symbol of womanhood that must be submissive and subject to discipline,
while others disagree with this interpretation.
Christian domestic discipline
A subculture known as Christian domestic discipline (CDD) promotes spanking
of wives by their husbands as a form of punishment. While its advocates
rely on Biblical interpretations to support the practice, advocates for
victims of domestic violence describe CDD as a form of abuse and
controlling behavior. Others describe the practice as a simple sexual fetish and an outlet for sadomasochistic desires. Christian conservative radio host Bryan Fischer said to the Huffington Post that it was a "horrifying trend – bizarre, twisted, unbiblical and un-Christian".
Responses to abuse
There are a variety of responses by Christian leaders to how victims should handle abuse:
Marjorie Proctor-Smith in Violence against women and children: a Christian Theological Sourcebook states that domestic physical, psychological or sexual violence is a sin.
It victimizes family members dependent on a man and violates trust
needed for healthy, equitable and cooperative relationships. She finds
that domestic violence is a symptom of sexism, a social sin.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
said in 2002, "As pastors of the Catholic Church in the United States,
we state as clearly and strongly as we can that violence against women,
inside or outside the home, is never justified."
The Church of England's report, Responding to Domestic Abuse
advises that Christian pastors and counselors should not advise victims
to make forgiving the perpetrator the top priority "when the welfare and
safety of the person being abused are at stake."
One mid-1980s survey of 5,700 pastors found that 26 percent of
pastors ordinarily would tell a woman being abused that she should
continue to submit and to "trust that God would honor her action by
either stopping the abuse or giving her the strength to endure it" and
that 71 percent of pastors would never advise a battered wife to leave
her husband or separate because of abuse.
A contributing factor to the disparity of responses to abuse is lack
of training; many Christian seminaries had not educated future church
leaders about how to manage violence against women. Once pastors began
receiving training, and announced their participation in domestic
violence educational programs, they immediately began receiving visits
from women church members who had been subject to violence. The first
Theological Education and Domestic Violence Conference, sponsored by the
Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence, was held in
1985 to identify topics that should be covered in seminaries. First,
church leaders will encounter sexual and domestic violence and they need
to know what community resources are available. Secondly, they need to
focus on ending the violence, rather than on keeping families together.
The American religious news-magazine Christianity Today
has published articles lamenting U.S. churches for possibly making
domestic abuse worse "not in incidence, but in response" due to
inadequate understandings. In December 2017, academic W. Bradford Wilcox
wrote for the publication, "Domestic violence is still present in
church-going homes... some local churches, clergy, and counselors fail
to address abuse head-on for fear of breaking up a marriage." He also
argued, "Others steer clear of addressing the topic from the pulpit or
in adult education for fear of broaching an uncomfortable subject. This
silence around domestic violence has to end."
Research into incidents of domestic violence
In
the 1970s, when multiple programs were initiated to train church
leaders about domestic violence, the response "But no one ever comes to
me with this problem" often came up to frustrate efforts. Church leaders
frequently believed that if no one reached out for assistance within
their congregations that there was no problem for them to deal with;
however, women often withheld discussing their problems over concern
that it would not be handled appropriately. When women increasingly became pastors
over the 20th century, many of them found that much of their time
became devoted to handling domestic abuse and other forms of violence
against women; "crisis intervention" became a vital topic for them.
Differing viewpoints between husband and wife may be an
aggravating factor in terms of abuse, particularly when women hold
beliefs in contrast to more ideologically hardline men.
Significant figures, also referred to as significant digits or sig figs, are specific digits within a number written in positional notation
that carry both reliability and necessity in conveying a particular
quantity. When presenting the outcome of a measurement (such as length,
pressure, volume, or mass), if the number of digits exceeds what the
measurement instrument can resolve, only the number of digits within the
resolution's capability are dependable and therefore considered significant.
For instance, if a length measurement yields 114.8 mm, using a
ruler with the smallest interval between marks at 1 mm, the first three
digits (1, 1, and 4, representing 114 mm) are certain and constitute
significant figures. Further, digits that are uncertain yet meaningful
are also included in the significant figures. In this example, the last
digit (8, contributing 0.8 mm) is likewise considered significant
despite its uncertainty. Therefore, this measurement contains four significant figures.
Another example involves a volume measurement of 2.98 L with an
uncertainty of ± 0.05 L. The actual volume falls between 2.93 L and
3.03 L. Even if certain digits are not completely known, they are still
significant if they are meaningful, as they indicate the actual volume
within an acceptable range of uncertainty. In this case, the actual
volume might be 2.94 L or possibly 3.02 L, so all three digits are
considered significant. Thus, there are three significant figures in this example.
The following types of digits are not considered significant:
Leading zeros.
For instance, 013 kg has two significant figures—1 and 3—while the
leading zero is insignificant since it does not impact the mass
indication; 013 kg is equivalent to 13 kg, rendering the zero
unnecessary. Similarly, in the case of 0.056 m, there are two
insignificant leading zeros since 0.056 m is the same as 56 mm, thus the
leading zeros do not contribute to the length indication.
Trailing zeros
when they serve as placeholders. In the measurement 1500 m, when the
measurement resolution is 100 m, the trailing zeros are insignificant as
they simply stand for the tens and ones places. In this instance,
1500 m indicates the length is approximately 1500 m rather than an exact
value of 1500 m.
Spurious
digits that arise from calculations resulting in a higher precision
than the original data or a measurement reported with greater precision
than the instrument's resolution.
A zero after a decimal (e.g., 1.0) is significant, and care should be
used when appending such a decimal of zero. Thus, in the case of 1.0,
there are two significant figures, whereas 1 (without a decimal) has one
significant figure.
Among a number's significant digits, the most significant digit is the one with the greatest exponent value (the leftmost significant digit/figure), while the least significant digit
is the one with the lowest exponent value (the rightmost significant
digit/figure). For example, in the number "123" the "1" is the most
significant digit, representing hundreds (102), while the "3" is the least significant digit, representing ones (100).
To avoid conveying a misleading level of precision, numbers are often rounded. For instance, it would create false precision
to present a measurement as 12.34525 kg when the measuring instrument
only provides accuracy to the nearest gram (0.001 kg). In this case, the
significant figures are the first five digits (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) from
the leftmost digit, and the number should be rounded to these
significant figures, resulting in 12.345 kg as the accurate value. The rounding error
(in this example, 0.00025 kg = 0.25 g) approximates the numerical
resolution or precision. Numbers can also be rounded for simplicity, not
necessarily to indicate measurement precision, such as for the sake of
expediency in news broadcasts.
Significance arithmetic encompasses a set of approximate rules
for preserving significance through calculations. More advanced
scientific rules are known as the propagation of uncertainty.
Radix 10 (base-10, decimal numbers) is assumed in the following. (See unit in the last place for extending these concepts to other bases.)
Identifying significant figures
Rules to identify significant figures in a number
Digits in light blue are significant figures; those in black are not.
Identifying the significant figures in a number requires knowing
which digits are meaningful, which requires knowing the resolution with
which the number is measured, obtained, or processed. For example, if
the measurable smallest mass is 0.001 g, then in a measurement given as
0.00234 g the "4" is not useful and should be discarded, while the "3"
is useful and should often be retained.
Non-zero digits within the given measurement or reporting resolution are significant.
91 has two significant figures (9 and 1) if they are measurement-allowed digits.
123.45 has five significant digits (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) if they are
within the measurement resolution. If the resolution is, say, 0.1, then
the 5 shows that the true value to 4 sig figs is equally likely to be
123.4 or 123.5.
Zeros between two significant non-zero digits are significant (significanttrapped zeros).
101.12003 consists of eight significant figures if the resolution is to 0.00001.
125.340006 has seven significant figures if the resolution is to 0.0001: 1, 2, 5, 3, 4, 0, and 0.
Zeros to the left of the first non-zero digit (leading zeros) are not significant.
If a length measurement gives 0.052 km, then 0.052 km = 52 m so 5
and 2 are only significant; the leading zeros appear or disappear,
depending on which unit is used, so they are not necessary to indicate
the measurement scale.
0.00034 has 2 significant figures (3 and 4) if the resolution is 0.00001.
Zeros to the right of the last non-zero digit (trailing zeros) in a number with the decimal point are significant if they are within the measurement or reporting resolution.
1.200 has four significant figures (1, 2, 0, and 0) if they are allowed by the measurement resolution.
0.0980 has three significant digits (9, 8, and the last zero) if they are within the measurement resolution.
120.000 consists of six significant figures (1, 2, and the four
subsequent zeroes) if, as before, they are within the measurement
resolution.
Trailing zeros in an integermay or may not be significant, depending on the measurement or reporting resolution.
45,600 has 3, 4 or 5 significant figures depending on how the
last zeros are used. For example, if the length of a road is reported as
45600 m without information about the reporting or measurement
resolution, then it is not clear if the road length is precisely
measured as 45600 m or if it is a rough estimate. If it is the rough
estimation, then only the first three non-zero digits are significant
since the trailing zeros are neither reliable nor necessary; 45600 m can
be expressed as 45.6 km or as 4.56 × 104 m in scientific notation, and neither expression requires the trailing zeros.
An exact number has an infinite number of significant figures.
If the number of apples in a bag is 4 (exact number), then this
number is 4.0000... (with infinite trailing zeros to the right of the
decimal point). As a result, 4 does not impact the number of significant
figures or digits in the result of calculations with it.
A mathematical or physical constant has significant figures to its known digits.
π is a specific real number
with several equivalent definitions. All of the digits in its exact
decimal expansion 3.14159265358979323... are significant. Although many
properties of these digits are known — for example, they do not repeat,
because π is irrational — not all of the digits are known. As of March 2024, more than 102 trillion digits
have been calculated. A 102 trillion-digit approximation has 102
trillion significant digits. In practical applications, far fewer digits
are used. The everyday approximation 3.14 has three significant figures
and 7 correct binary
digits. The approximation 22/7 has the same three correct decimal
digits but has 10 correct binary digits. Most calculators and computer
programs can handle the 16-digit expansion 3.141592653589793, which is
sufficient for interplanetary navigation calculations.
The Planck constant is and is defined as an exact value so that it is more properly defined as .
Ways to denote significant figures in an integer with trailing zeros
The
significance of trailing zeros in a number not containing a decimal
point can be ambiguous. For example, it may not always be clear if the
number 1300 is precise to the nearest unit (just happens coincidentally
to be an exact multiple of a hundred) or if it is only shown to the
nearest hundreds due to rounding or uncertainty. Many conventions exist
to address this issue. However, these are not universally used and would
only be effective if the reader is familiar with the convention:
An overline, sometimes also called an overbar, or less accurately, a vinculum, may be placed over the last significant figure; any trailing zeros following this are insignificant. For example, 1300 has three significant figures (and hence indicates that the number is precise to the nearest ten).
Less often, using a closely related convention, the last significant figure of a number may be underlined; for example, "1300" has two significant figures.
A decimal point may be placed after the number; for
example "1300." indicates specifically that trailing zeros are meant to
be significant.
As the conventions above are not in general use, the following more
widely recognized options are available for indicating the significance
of number with trailing zeros:
Eliminate ambiguous or non-significant zeros by changing the unit prefix in a number with a unit of measurement.
For example, the precision of measurement specified as 1300 g is
ambiguous, while if stated as 1.30 kg it is not. Likewise 0.0123 L can
be rewritten as 12.3 mL.
Eliminate ambiguous or non-significant zeros by using
Scientific Notation: For example, 1300 with three significant figures
becomes 1.30×103. Likewise 0.0123 can be rewritten as 1.23×10−2. The part of the representation that contains the significant figures (1.30 or 1.23) is known as the significand or mantissa. The digits in the base and exponent (103 or 10−2) are considered exact numbers so for these digits, significant figures are irrelevant.
Explicitly state the number of significant figures (the
abbreviation s.f. is sometimes used): For example "20 000 to 2 s.f." or
"20 000 (2 sf)".
State the expected variability (precision) explicitly with a plus–minus sign, as in 20 000 ± 1%. This also allows specifying a range of precision in-between powers of ten.
Rounding to significant figures
Rounding to significant figures is a more general-purpose technique than rounding to n
digits, since it handles numbers of different scales in a uniform way.
For example, the population of a city might only be known to the nearest
thousand and be stated as 52,000, while the population of a country
might only be known to the nearest million and be stated as 52,000,000.
The former might be in error by hundreds, and the latter might be in
error by hundreds of thousands, but both have two significant figures (5
and 2). This reflects the fact that the significance of the error is
the same in both cases, relative to the size of the quantity being
measured.
To round a number to n significant figures:
If the n + 1 digit is greater than 5 or is 5 followed by other non-zero digits, add 1 to the n digit. For example, if we want to round 1.2459 to 3 significant figures, then this step results in 1.25.
If the n + 1 digit is 5 not followed by other digits or followed by only zeros, then rounding requires a tie-breaking rule. For example, to round 1.25 to 2 significant figures:
Round half away from zero rounds up to 1.3. This is the default rounding method implied in many disciplines[citation needed] if the required rounding method is not specified.
Round half to even,
which rounds to the nearest even number. With this method, 1.25 is
rounded down to 1.2. If this method applies to 1.35, then it is rounded
up to 1.4. This is the method preferred by many scientific disciplines,
because, for example, it avoids skewing the average value of a long list
of values upwards.
For an integer in rounding, replace the digits after the n
digit with zeros. For example, if 1254 is rounded to 2 significant
figures, then 5 and 4 are replaced to 0 so that it will be 1300. For a
number with the decimal point in rounding, remove the digits after the n digit. For example, if 14.895 is rounded to 3 significant figures, then the digits after 8 are removed so that it will be 14.9.
In financial calculations, a number is often rounded to a given number of places. For example, to two places after the decimal separator
for many world currencies. This is done because greater precision is
immaterial, and usually it is not possible to settle a debt of less than
the smallest currency unit.
In UK personal tax returns, income is rounded down to the nearest pound, whilst tax paid is calculated to the nearest penny.
As an illustration, the decimal quantity 12.345
can be expressed with various numbers of significant figures or decimal
places. If insufficient precision is available then the number is rounded
in some manner to fit the available precision. The following table
shows the results for various total precision at two rounding ways (N/A
stands for Not Applicable).
Precision
Rounded to significant figures
Rounded to decimal places
6
12.3450
12.345000
5
12.345
12.34500
4
12.34 or 12.35
12.3450
3
12.3
12.345
2
12
12.34 or 12.35
1
10
12.3
0
—
12
Another example for 0.012345. (Remember that the leading zeros are not significant.)
Precision
Rounded to significant figures
Rounded to decimal places
7
0.01234500
0.0123450
6
0.0123450
0.012345
5
0.012345
0.01234 or 0.01235
4
0.01234 or 0.01235
0.0123
3
0.0123
0.012
2
0.012
0.01
1
0.01
0.0
0
—
0
The representation of a non-zero number x to a precision of p significant digits has a numerical value that is given by the formula:
where
which may need to be written with a specific marking as detailed above to specify the number of significant trailing zeros.
Writing uncertainty and implied uncertainty
Significant figures in writing uncertainty
It is recommended for a measurement result to include the measurement uncertainty such as , where xbest and σx are the best estimate and uncertainty in the measurement respectively. xbest can be the average of measured values and σx can be the standard deviation or a multiple of the measurement deviation. The rules to write are:
σx should usually be quoted to only one or two significant figures, as more precision is unlikely to be reliable or meaningful:
The digit positions of the last significant figures in xbest and σx
are the same, otherwise the consistency is lost. For example, "1.79 ±
0.067" is incorrect, as it does not make sense to have more accurate
uncertainty than the best estimate.
Uncertainty may be implied by the last significant figure if it is not explicitly expressed.
The implied uncertainty is ± the half of the minimum scale at the last
significant figure position. For example, if the mass of an object is
reported as 3.78 kg without mentioning uncertainty, then ± 0.005 kg
measurement uncertainty may be implied. If the mass of an object is
estimated as 3.78 ± 0.07 kg, so the actual mass is probably somewhere in
the range 3.71 to 3.85 kg, and it is desired to report it with a single
number, then 3.8 kg is the best number to report since its implied
uncertainty ± 0.05 kg gives a mass range of 3.75 to 3.85 kg, which is
close to the measurement range. If the uncertainty is a bit larger, i.e.
3.78 ± 0.09 kg, then 3.8 kg is still the best single number to quote,
since if "4 kg" was reported then a lot of information would be lost.
If there is a need to write the implied uncertainty of a number, then it can be written as with stating it as the implied uncertainty (to prevent readers from recognizing it as the measurement uncertainty), where x and σx
are the number with an extra zero digit (to follow the rules to write
uncertainty above) and the implied uncertainty of it respectively. For
example, 6 kg with the implied uncertainty ± 0.5 kg can be stated as
6.0 ± 0.5 kg.
Arithmetic
As there are rules to determine the significant figures in directly measured quantities, there are also guidelines (not rules) to determine the significant figures in quantities calculated from these measured quantities.
Significant figures in measured quantities are most important in the determination of significant figures in calculated quantities with them. A mathematical or physical constant (e.g., π in the formula for the area of a circle with radius r as πr2)
has no effect on the determination of the significant figures in the
result of a calculation with it if its known digits are equal to or more
than the significant figures in the measured quantities used in the
calculation. An exact number such as ½ in the formula for the kinetic energy of a mass m with velocity v as ½mv2
has no bearing on the significant figures in the calculated kinetic
energy since its number of significant figures is infinite
(0.500000...).
The guidelines described below are intended to avoid a
calculation result more precise than the measured quantities, but it
does not ensure the resulted implied uncertainty close enough to the
measured uncertainties. This problem can be seen in unit conversion. If
the guidelines give the implied uncertainty too far from the measured
ones, then it may be needed to decide significant digits that give
comparable uncertainty.
Multiplication and division
For quantities created from measured quantities via multiplication and division, the calculated result should have as many significant figures as the least number of significant figures among the measured quantities used in the calculation. For example,
1.234 × 2 = 2.468 ≈ 2
1.234 × 2.0 = 2.468 ≈ 2.5
0.01234 × 2 = 0.02468 ≈ 0.02
0.012345678 / 0.00234 = 5.2759 ≈ 5.28
with one, two, and one significant figures
respectively. (2 here is assumed not an exact number.) For the first
example, the first multiplication factor has four significant figures
and the second has one significant figure. The factor with the fewest or
least significant figures is the second one with only one, so the final
calculated result should also have one significant figure.
Exception
For
unit conversion, the implied uncertainty of the result can be
unsatisfactorily higher than that in the previous unit if this rounding
guideline is followed; For example, 8 inch has the implied uncertainty
of ± 0.5 inch = ± 1.27 cm. If it is converted to the centimeter scale
and the rounding guideline for multiplication and division is followed,
then 20.32 cm ≈ 20 cm
with the implied uncertainty of ± 5 cm. If this implied uncertainty is
considered as too overestimated, then more proper significant digits in
the unit conversion result may be 20.32 cm ≈ 20. cm with the implied uncertainty of ± 0.5 cm.
Another exception of applying the above rounding guideline is to
multiply a number by an integer, such as 1.234 × 9. If the above
guideline is followed, then the result is rounded as 1.234 × 9.000.... =
11.106 ≈ 11.11. However,
this multiplication is essentially adding 1.234 to itself 9 times such
as 1.234 + 1.234 + … + 1.234 so the rounding guideline for addition and
subtraction described below is more proper rounding approach. As a result, the final answer is 1.234 + 1.234 + … + 1.234 = 11.106 = 11.106 (one significant digit increase).
Addition and subtraction of significant figures
For quantities created from measured quantities via addition and subtraction,
the last significant figure position (e.g., hundreds, tens, ones,
tenths, hundredths, and so forth) in the calculated result should be the
same as the leftmost or largest digit position among the last significant figures of the measured quantities in the calculation. For example,
1.234 + 2 = 3.234 ≈ 3
1.234 + 2.0 = 3.234 ≈ 3.2
0.01234 + 2 = 2.01234 ≈ 2
12000 + 77 = 12077 ≈ 12000
with the last significant figures in the ones place, tenths place, ones place, and thousands
place respectively. (2 here is assumed not an exact number.) For the
first example, the first term has its last significant figure in the
thousandths place and the second term has its last significant figure in
the ones place. The leftmost or largest digit position among the
last significant figures of these terms is the ones place, so the
calculated result should also have its last significant figure in the
ones place.
The rule to calculate significant figures for multiplication and
division are not the same as the rule for addition and subtraction. For
multiplication and division, only the total number of significant
figures in each of the factors in the calculation matters; the digit
position of the last significant figure in each factor is irrelevant.
For addition and subtraction, only the digit position of the last
significant figure in each of the terms in the calculation matters; the
total number of significant figures in each term is irrelevant.
However, greater accuracy will often be obtained if some
non-significant digits are maintained in intermediate results which are
used in subsequent calculations.
Logarithm and antilogarithm
The base-10 logarithm of a normalized number (i.e., a × 10b with 1 ≤ a < 10 and b as an integer), is rounded such that its decimal part (called mantissa) has as many significant figures as the significant figures in the normalized number.
When taking the antilogarithm of a normalized number, the result is
rounded to have as many significant figures as the significant figures
in the decimal part of the number to be antiloged.
If a transcendental function (e.g., the exponential function, the logarithm, and the trigonometric functions) is differentiable at its domain element 'x', then its number of significant figures (denoted as "significant figures of ") is approximately related with the number of significant figures in x (denoted as "significant figures of x") by the formula
When
performing multiple stage calculations, do not round intermediate stage
calculation results; keep as many digits as is practical (at least one
more digit than the rounding rule allows per stage) until the end of all
the calculations to avoid cumulative rounding errors while tracking or
recording the significant figures in each intermediate result. Then,
round the final result, for example, to the fewest number of significant
figures (for multiplication or division) or leftmost last significant
digit position (for addition or subtraction) among the inputs in the
final calculation.
When
using a ruler, initially use the smallest mark as the first estimated
digit. For example, if a ruler's smallest mark is 0.1 cm, and 4.5 cm is
read, then it is 4.5 (±0.1 cm) or 4.4 cm to 4.6 cm as to the smallest
mark interval. However, in practice a measurement can usually be
estimated by eye to closer than the interval between the ruler's
smallest mark, e.g. in the above case it might be estimated as between
4.51 cm and 4.53 cm.
It is also possible that the overall length of a ruler may not be
accurate to the degree of the smallest mark, and the marks may be
imperfectly spaced within each unit. However assuming a normal good
quality ruler, it should be possible to estimate tenths between the
nearest two marks to achieve an extra decimal place of accuracy. Failing to do this adds the error in reading the ruler to any error in the calibration of the ruler.
When estimating the proportion of individuals carrying some
particular characteristic in a population, from a random sample of that
population, the number of significant figures should not exceed the
maximum precision allowed by that sample size.
Relationship to accuracy and precision in measurement
Traditionally, in various technical fields, "accuracy" refers to the
closeness of a given measurement to its true value; "precision" refers
to the stability of that measurement when repeated many times. Thus, it
is possible to be "precisely wrong". Hoping to reflect the way in which
the term "accuracy" is actually used in the scientific community, there
is a recent standard, ISO 5725, which keeps the same definition of
precision but defines the term "trueness" as the closeness of a given
measurement to its true value and uses the term "accuracy" as the
combination of trueness and precision. (See the accuracy and precision article for a full discussion.) In either case, the number of significant figures roughly corresponds to precision, not to accuracy or the newer concept of trueness.
Computer representations of floating-point numbers use a form of
rounding to significant figures (while usually not keeping track of how
many), in general with binary numbers. The number of correct significant figures is closely related to the notion of relative error (which has the advantage of being a more accurate measure of precision, and is independent of the radix, also known as the base, of the number system used).
Electronic calculators supporting a dedicated significant figures display mode are relatively rare.
Among the calculators to support related features are the CommodoreM55 Mathematician (1976) and the S61 Statistician (1976), which support two display modes, where DISP+n will give n significant digits in total, while DISP+.+n will give n decimal places.
The Texas InstrumentsTI-83 Plus (1999) and TI-84 Plus (2004) families of graphical calculators support a Sig-Fig Calculator
mode in which the calculator will evaluate the count of significant
digits of entered numbers and display it in square brackets behind the
corresponding number. The results of calculations will be adjusted to
only show the significant digits as well.
For the HP20b/30b-based community-developed WP 34S (2011) and WP 31S (2014) calculators significant figures display modes SIG+n and SIG0+n (with zero padding) are available as a compile-time option. The SwissMicrosDM42-based community-developed calculators WP 43C (2019) / C43 (2022) / C47 (2023) support a significant figures display mode as well.
Bison hunting (hunting of the American bison, also commonly known as the American buffalo) was an activity fundamental to the economy and society of the Plains Indians peoples who inhabited the vast grasslands on the Interior Plains of North America, before the animal's near-extinction in the late 19th century following United States expansion into the West.
Bison hunting was an important spiritual practice and source of
material for these groups, especially after the European introduction of
the horse in the 16th through 19th centuries enabled new hunting
techniques. The species' dramatic decline was the result of habitat loss due to the expansion of ranching and farming in western North America, industrial-scale hunting practiced by settler
hunters increased Indigenous hunting pressure due to settler demand for
bison hides and meat, and cases of a deliberate policy by settler
governments to destroy the food source of the Indigenous peoples during
times of conflict.
Prehistoric and native hunting
Long before the arrival of humans in the Americas, bison hunting had been practiced by archaic humans in Eurasia, like Neanderthals.
Bison hunting has been practiced in North America since shortly after
the first arrival of humans in the region. At Jake Bluff in northern
Oklahoma, Clovis points are associated with numerous butchered bones of the extinct bison species Bison antiquus, which represented a bison herd of at least 22 individuals, which dates to around 12,838 calibrated years Before Present (10,888 BC) At the time of deposition, the site was a steep-sided arroyo
(dry watercourse) that formed a dead-end, suggesting that Clovis
hunters trapped the bison herd within the arroyo before killing them,
showing continuity with the bison hunting tactics of the later Folsom tradition.
A bison hunt depicted by George CatlinHidatsa hunting bison, George Catlin, c. 1832Bison and Indians of De Bry, 1595. Pedro Castaneda, a soldier with Coronado on the Southern Plains in 1542, compared the bison with "fish in the sea".
Native American plains bison hunting
Ecology, spread, interaction with humans
The modern American bison is split into two subspecies, the wood bison in the boreal forests of what is now Canada, and the plains bison on the prairies extending from Canada to Mexico. The plains subspecies became the dominant animal of the prairies of North America, where bison were a keystone species, whose grazing and trampling pressure was a force that shaped the ecology of the Great Plains as strongly as periodic prairie fires and which were central to the survival of many Indigenous peoples of the Great Plains.
To the corn-growing village people, it was a valued second food source.
However, there is now some controversy over their interaction. Charles
C. Mann wrote in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, pages 367 ff, "Hernando De Soto's
expedition staggered through the Southeast for four years in the early
16th century and saw hordes of people but apparently didn't see a single
bison." Mann discussed the evidence that Native Americans not only
created (by selective use of fire) the large grasslands that provided
the bison's ideal habitat but also kept the bison population regulated.
In this theory, it was only when the original human population was
devastated by wave after wave of epidemics (from diseases of Europeans)
after the 16th century that the bison herds propagated wildly. In such a
view, the seas of bison herds that stretched to the horizon were a
symptom of an ecology out of balance, only rendered possible by decades
of heavier-than-average rainfall. Other evidence of the arrival circa
1550–1600 in the savannas of the eastern seaboard includes the lack of places that southeast natives named after buffalo. Bison were the most numerous single species of large wild mammal on Earth.
Religious rituals
Religion
plays a big role in Native American bison hunting. Plains tribes
generally believe that successful hunts require certain rituals. The Omaha tribe
had to approach a herd in four legs. At each stop, the chiefs and the
leader of the hunt would sit down and smoke and offer prayers for
success. The Pawnee performed the purifying Big Washing Ceremony before each tribal summer hunt to avoid scaring the bison.
To Plains tribes, the buffalo is one of the most sacred animals,
and they feel obligated to treat them with respect. When they are about
to kill a buffalo, they will offer it a prayer. Failures in the hunt
could have been attributed to poorly performed rituals.
Trapping
Before
the introduction of horses, bison were herded into large chutes made of
rocks and willow branches (drive lines) and trapped in a corral called a
buffalo pound, and then slaughtered or stampeded over cliffs, called buffalo jumps. Both pound and jump archaeological sites are found in several places in the U.S. and Canada.
Buffalo jumps
In the case of a jump, large groups of people would herd the bison for several miles, forcing them into a stampede that drove the herd over a cliff.
The earliest evidence for buffalo jumps dates to around 1400.
Ulm Pishkun. Buffalo Jump, SW of Great Falls, Montana. The Blackfoot
drove bison over cliffs in the fall to secure the winter supply.
Animals not killed in the fall were trapped and killed in a corral at
the foot of the cliffs. The Blackfoot used pishkuns as late as the
1850s.
Working on foot, a few groups of Native Americans at times used fires
to channel an entire herd of buffalo over a cliff, sometimes killing
far more than they could use.
A Crow historian has related some ways to get bison. With the help of songs, hazers, drive lines of stones (cf. desert kites), and a medicine man
pointing down the line with a pair of hindquarters in his hands, the
Crows drove many bison over a cliff. A successful drive could give 700
animals.
Driving herds into enclosures
In the dog days, the women of a Blackfoot camp made a curved fence of travois tied together, front end up. Runners drove the game towards the enclosure, where hunters waited with lances, as well as bows and arrows.
People surrounding herds
Henry Kelsey
described a hunt on the northern plains in 1691. First, the tribe
surrounded a herd. Then they would "gather themselves into a smaller
Compass Keeping ye Beast still in ye middle". The hunters killed as many as they could before the animals broke through the human ring.
Exhausting single bison
Russel Means
states that bison were killed by using a method that coyotes
implemented. Coyotes will sometimes cut one bison off from the herd and
chase it in a circle until the animal collapses or gives up due to
exhaustion.
Driving bison on ice
During winter, Chief One Heart's camp would maneuver the game out on
slick ice, where it was easier to kill with hunting weapons.
Driving bison under ice
The Hidatsa
near the Missouri River confined the buffalo on the weakest ice at the
end of winter. When it cracked, the current swept the animals down under
thicker ice. The people hauled the drowned animals ashore when they
emerged downstream. Although not hunted in a strict sense, the nearby Mandan
secured bison, and drowned by chance, when the ice broke. A trader
observed the young men "in the drift ice leap from piece to piece, often
falling between, plunging under, darting up elsewhere and securing
themselves upon very slippery flakes" before they brought the carcasses
to land.
Butchering methods and yield
The Olsen–Chubbuck archaeological site in Colorado,
where buffalo herds were driven over a cliff, reveals some techniques,
which may or may not have been widely used. The method involves skinning
down the back to get at the tender meat just beneath the surface, the
area known as the "hatched area". After the removal of the hatched area,
the front legs are cut off as well as the shoulder blades. Doing so
exposes the hump meat (in the Wood Bison), as well as the meat of the
ribs and the Bison's inner organs. After everything was exposed, the
spine was then severed and the pelvis and hind legs were removed.
Finally, the neck and head were removed as one. This allowed for the
tough meat to be dried and made into pemmican.
Castaneda saw Indigenous women butchering bison with a flint
fixed on a short stick. He admired how quickly they completed the task.
Blood to drink was filled in emptied guts, which were carried around the
neck.
Each animal produces from 200 to 400 lb (91 to 181 kg) of meat.
Illustration of Indians hunting the bison by Karl Bodmer
Horses taken from the Spanish were well-established in the nomadic
hunting cultures by the early 1700s, and Indigenous groups once living
east of the Great Plains moved west to hunt the larger bison population.
Intertribal warfare forced the Cheyenne to give up their cornfields at Biesterfeldt village and eventually cross west of the Missouri and become the well-known horseback buffalo hunters. In addition to using bison for themselves, these Indigenous groups also traded meat and robes to village-based tribes.
Lakota Winter Count of American Horse, 1817–1818. "The Oglalas had an abundance of buffalo meat and shared it with the Brulés, who were short of food". A bison skin on a frame designates plenty of meat.
A good horseman could easily lance or shoot enough bison to keep his
tribe and family fed, as long as a herd was nearby. The bison provided
meat, leather, and sinew for bows.
A fast-hunting horse would usually be spared and first mounted near the bison. The hunter rode on a pack horse until then. Hunters with few horses ran beside the mount to the hunting grounds. Accidents, sometimes fatal, happened from time to time to both rider and horse.
To avoid disputes, each hunter used arrows marked in a personal way. Lakota hunter Bear Face recognized his arrows by one of three "arrow wings" made of a pelican feather. Castaneda wrote how it was possible to shoot an arrow right through a buffalo. The Pawnees had contests as to how many bison it was possible to kill with just one bowshot. The best result was three. An arrow stuck in the animal was preferred as the most lethal. It would inflict more damage with each jump and move. A white traveler credited the hunters with cutting up a bison and packing the meat on a horse in less than 15 minutes.
When the bison stayed away and made hunting impossible, famine
became a reality. The hard experience of starvation found its way into
stories and myths. A folk tale of the Kiowa begins "Famine once struck the Kiowa People..." "The people were without food and no game could be found..." makes an Omaha myth certain. A fur trader noted how some Sioux were in want of meat at one time in 1804. Starving Yanktonais passed by Fort Clark in 1836.
Diminishing herds and the effects on tribes
Already
Castaneda noted the typical relations of two different plains people
relying heavily on the same food source: "They ... are enemies of each
other."
The bison hunting resulted in the loss of land for many tribal nations.
Indirectly, it often disturbed the rhythm of tribal life, caused
economic losses and hardship, and damaged tribal autonomy. As long as
bison hunting went on, intertribal warfare was omnipresent.
Loss of land and disputes over the hunting grounds
Ration Day at the Standing Rock Agency, 1883. The scarcity of buffalo led Plains Indians to become dependent on US government rations as the source of food.
Tribes forced away from the game-rich areas had to try their luck on
the edges of the best buffalo habitats. Small tribes found it hard to do
even that. Due to attacks in the 1850s and 1860s, the villages of Upper
Missouri "hardly dared go into the plains to hunt buffalo". The Sioux would stay near Arikara villages "and keep the bison away, so they could sell meat and hides to the Arikaras".
The Kiowas have an early history in parts of present-day Montana
and South Dakota. Here they fought the Cheyenne, "who challenged their
right to hunt buffalo". Later, the Kiowas headed for the south together with the Comanche, when "the Lakota (Teton Sioux) drove them from the Black Hills territory". In present-day Montana, the better-armed Blackfoot pushed the Kutenai, Flathead, and Shoshone off the plains.
At the start of the 19th century, they claimed the buffalo ranges
entirely to the Rocky Mountains and fought all conceived as intruders.
The less numerical tribe peoples west of the continental divide did not
accept this. Their ancestors had hunted on the Great Plains and they
would continue the tradition at all cost. "When we go to hunt Bison, we
also prepare for war with the Peeagans [Piegan Blackfeet] and their allies", revealed a Flathead chief.
A Kutenai gave this description of tribal hunts during buffalo days,
"Across the mountains they went out on the prairie, but they were afraid
of the Piegans."
In 1866, the Pend d'Oreilles
crossed the Rocky Mountains from the west, just to be attacked by
tribes as they entered the plains. They lost 21 people. The beaten
hunting party returned in a "horrible condition" and "all nearly
famished". Often, the attackers tried to capture dried meat, equipment, and horses during a fight. The lack of horses owing to raids reduced the chances of securing an ample amount of meat on the hunts. In 1860, the Ponca lost 100 horses, while the Mandan and Hidatsa saw the enemy disappear with 175 horses in a single raid in 1861.
Conflicts between the bison-hunting tribes ranged from raids to massacres. Camps were left without leaders. In the course of a battle, tipis and hides could be cut to pieces and tipi poles broken.Organized bison hunts and camp moves were stopped by the enemy, and villages had to flee their homes.
Massacre Canyon battlefield (1873), Nebraska. Pawnee reservation and relevant territories. The last major battle
was between two big hunting parties, Lakota and Pawnee. It cost the
lives of a minimum of ten children, 20 men and 39 women from the Pawnee
tribe, counting Chief Sky Chief. The battle was fought on U.S. ground
more than 180 miles outside both reservations.
The Sioux burned a village of Nuptadi Mandans in the last quarter of the 18th century.
Other villages of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara destroyed either
completely or partially in attacks are two Hidatsa villages in 1834, Mitutanka on January 9, 1839 and Like-a-Fishhook Village in 1862.
The three tribes would routinely ask the U.S. army for assistance
against stronger powers until the end of intertribal warfare in the
area.
Eighteen out of 30 prominent Poncas were killed in a surprise attack in 1824, "including the famous Smoke-maker".
At a stroke, the small tribe stood without any experienced leaders. In
1859, the Poncas lost two chiefs when a combined group of enemies
charged a hunting camp. Half a Pawnee village was set ablaze
during a large-scale attack in 1843, and the Pawnee never rebuilt it.
More than 60 inhabitants lost their lives, including Chief Blue Coat.
The otherwise numerous Small Robes band of the Piegan Blackfoot lost
influence and some self-reliance after a severe River Crow attack on a
moving camp at "Mountains on Both Sides" (Judith Gap, Montana) in 1845. "Their days of greatness were over." In 1852, an Omaha delegation visited Washington, D.C. It would "request the federal government's protection". Five different nations raided the Omaha.
1892: bison skulls await industrial processing at Michigan Carbon Works in Rogueville (a suburb of Detroit).
Bones were processed to be used for glue, fertilizer, dye/tint/ink, or
were burned to create "bone char" which was an important component for
sugar refining. In the 16th century, North America contained 25–30
million buffalo.
In the 19th century, European settlers hunted bison almost to extinction. Fewer than 100 remained in the wild by the late 1880s.
Unlike Indigenous practices, where hunters took only what was needed
and used the whole animal, these settlers hunted them en masse for only
their skins and tongues and left the rest of the animal behind to decay
on the ground. After the animals rotted, their bones were collected and shipped back east in large quantities.
Due to the roaming behavior of bison, their mass destruction came
with relative ease to the European hunters. When one bison in a herd is
killed, the other bison gather around it. Due to this pattern, the
ability of a hunter to kill one bison often led to the destruction of a
large herd of them.
Map of the extermination of the bison to 1889. This map is based on William Temple Hornaday's late-19th-century research.
Original range
Range as of 1870
Range as of 1889
In 1889, an essay in a journal of the time observed:
Thirty years ago millions of
the great unwieldy animals existed on this continent. Innumerable droves
roamed, comparatively undisturbed and unmolested ... Many thousands
have been ruthlessly and shamefully slain every season for past twenty
years or more by white hunters and tourists merely for their robes, and
in sheer wanton sport, and their huge carcasses left to fester and rot,
and their bleached skeletons to strew the deserts and lonely plains.
Indigenous peoples whose lives depended on the Buffalo also continued to hunt, and they were faced with having to adapt to the arrival of European settlers in the Plains. While most struggled to continue their traditional ways, other Plains cultures
were forced to adapt their style of hunting. Andrew Isenberg argues
that some Native people embraced the fur trade and that adapting their
hunting methods to include hunting on horseback, added to the number of
bison they could hunt.
Commercial incentives
Rath & Wright's buffalo hide yard in Dodge City, Kansas, shows 40,000 buffalo hides.
For settlers of the Plains region,
bison hunting served as a way to increase their economic stake in the
area. Trappers and traders made their living selling buffalo fur; in the
winter of 1872–1873, more than 1.5 million buffalo were put onto trains
and moved eastward.
In addition to the potential profits from buffalo leather, which was
commonly used to make machinery belts and army boots, buffalo hunting
forced Natives to become dependent on beef from cattle. General Winfield Scott Hancock, for example, reminded several Arapaho chiefs at Fort Dodge
in 1867: "You know well that the game is getting very scarce and that
you must soon have some other means of living; you should therefore
cultivate the friendship of the white man, so that when the game is all
gone, they may take care of you if necessary."
Commercial bison hunters also emerged at this time. Military
forts often supported hunters, who would use their civilian sources near
their military base. Though officers hunted bison for food and sport, professional hunters made a far larger impact on the decline of the bison population. Officers stationed in Fort Hays and Wallace even had bets in their "buffalo shooting championship of the world", between "Medicine Bill" Comstock and "Buffalo Bill" Cody. Some of these hunters would engage in mass bison slaughter to make a living.
Government involvement
The US Army sanctioned and actively endorsed the wholesale slaughter of bison herds. The federal government promoted bison hunting for various reasons, primarily to pressure the native people onto the Indian reservations during times of conflict by removing their main food source.
Without the bison, native people of the plains were often forced to
leave the land or starve to death. One of the biggest advocates of this
strategy was General William Tecumseh Sherman.
On June 26, 1869, the Army Navy Journal reported: "General Sherman
remarked, in conversation the other day, that the quickest way to compel
the Indians to settle down to civilized life was to send ten regiments
of soldiers to the plains, with orders to shoot buffaloes until they
became too scarce to support the redskins."
Similarly, Lieutenant General John M. Schofield
would write in his memoirs: "With my cavalry and carbined artillery
encamped in front, I wanted no other occupation in life than to ward off
the savage and kill off his food until there should no longer be an
Indian frontier in our beautiful country." Later, President Ulysses S. Grant vetoed the act of Congress HR 921, which would have implemented protections against white overhunting of buffalo. Before this, Secretary of the Interior, Columbus Delano, had stated the following regarding complaints about whites hunting buffalo on native reservations:
"While
I would not seriously regret the total disappearance of the buffalo
from our western prairies, in its effect on the Indians, regarding it
rather as a means of hastening their sense of dependence upon the
products of the soil and their own labors, yet these encroachments by
the whites upon the reservations set apart for the exclusive occupancy
of the Indian is one prolific source of trouble in the management of the
reservation Indians, and measures should be adopted to prevent such
trespasses in the future, or very serious collisions may be the result."
Demonstrating clearly that he saw white poaching
of bison as a problem only because it may lead to retaliation from the
Indians, and on the contrary, that he saw the extermination of the
buffalo as potentially beneficial in the forced assimilation of Indians.
According to Professor David Smits: "Frustrated bluecoats, unable
to deliver a punishing blow to the so-called 'Hostiles', unless they
were immobilized in their winter camps, could, however, strike at a more
accessible target, namely, the buffalo. That tactic also made curious
sense, for in soldiers' minds the buffalo and the Plains Indian were
virtually inseparable."
Native American involvement
According to Finnish historian Pekka Hämäläinen, a few Native American tribes also partly contributed to the collapse of the bison in the southern Plains. By the 1830s the Comanche
and their allies on the southern plains were killing about 280,000
bison a year, which was near the limit of sustainability for that
region. Firearms and horses, along with a growing export market for
buffalo robes and bison meat had resulted in larger and larger numbers
of bison killed each year. A long and intense drought hit the southern
plains in 1845, lasting into the 1860s, which caused a widespread
collapse of the bison herds. In the 1860s, the rains returned and the bison herds recovered to a degree.
Railroad involvement
After the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862,
the West experienced a large boom in the colonist population—and a
large decline in the bison population. As railways expanded, military
troops and supplies were able to be transported more efficiently to the
Plains region. Some railroads even hired commercial hunters to feed
their laborers. William Frederick "Buffalo Bill" Cody, for example, was hired by the Kansas Pacific Railroad for this reason.
Hunters began arriving in masses, and trains would often slow
down on their routes to allow for raised hunting. Men would either climb
aboard the roofs of trains or fire shots at herds from outside their
windows. As a description of this from Harper's Weekly noted:
"The train is 'slowed' to a speed about equal to that of the herd; the
passengers get out fire-arms which are provided for the defense of the
train against the Indians, and open from the windows and platforms of
the cars a fire that resembles a brisk skirmish."
The railroad industry also wanted bison herds culled or
eliminated. Herds of bison on tracks could damage locomotives when the
trains failed to stop in time. Herds often took shelter in the
artificial cuts formed by the grade of the track winding through hills
and mountains in harsh winter conditions. As a result, bison herds
could delay a train for days.
Commercial hunting
Bison
skins were used for industrial machine belts, clothing such as robes,
and rugs. There was a huge export trade to Europe of bison hides. Old
West bison hunting was very often a big commercial enterprise, involving
organized teams of one or two professional hunters, backed by a team of
skinners, gun cleaners, cartridge
reloaders, cooks, wranglers, blacksmiths, security guards, teamsters,
and numerous horses and wagons. Men were even employed to recover and
recast lead bullets taken from the carcasses. Many of these professional
hunters, such as Buffalo Bill Cody,
killed over a hundred animals at a single stand and many thousands in
their careers. One professional hunter killed over 20,000 by his count.
The average prices paid the buffalo hunters from 1880 to 1884 were about
as follows: For cow hides, $3; bull hides, $2.50; yearlings, $1.50;
calves, $0.75; and the cost of getting the hides to market brought the
cost up to about $3.50 ($89.68 accounting for inflation) per hide.
The hunter would customarily locate the herd in the early
morning, and station himself about 100 yd (91 m) from it, shooting the
animals broadside through the lungs. Head shots were not preferred as
the soft lead bullets would often flatten and fail to penetrate the
skull, especially if mud was matted on the head of the animal. The bison
would continue to drop until either the herd sensed danger and
stampeded or perhaps a wounded animal attacked another, causing the herd
to disperse. If done properly a large number of bison would be felled
at one time. Following up were the skinners, who would drive a spike
through the nose of each dead animal with a sledgehammer,
hook up a horse team, and pull the hide from the carcass. The hides
were dressed, prepared, and stacked on the wagons by other members of
the organization.
For a decade after 1873, there were several hundred, perhaps over
a thousand, such commercial hide-hunting outfits harvesting bison at
any one time, vastly exceeding the take by Native Americans or
individual meat hunters. The commercial take arguably was anywhere from
2,000 to 100,000 animals per day depending on the season, though there
are no statistics available. It was said that the .50 caliber (12.7mm) rifles
were fired so much that buffalo hunters needed at least two or three
rifles to allow the barrels to cool off; The Fireside Book of Guns reports
that the rifles were sometimes quenched in the winter snow to expedite
the process. Dodge City saw railroad cars sent East filled with stacked
hides.
The building of the railroads through Colorado and Kansas split
the bison herd into two parts, the southern herd and the northern herd.
The last refuge of the southern herd was in the Texas Panhandle.
Discussion of bison protection
As
the great herds began to wane, proposals to protect the bison were
discussed. In some cases, individual military officers attempted to end
the mass slaughter of these buffalo. William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody, among others, spoke in favor of protecting the bison because he saw that the pressure on the species
was too great. Yet these proposals were discouraged since it was
recognized that the Plains Indians, some of the tribes often at war with
the United States, depended on bison for their way of life. (Other
buffalo-hunting tribes cannot tell of a single fight with the United
States, namely tribes like the Assiniboine, the Hidatsa, the Gros Ventre, the Ponca and the Omaha).
In 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant "pocket vetoed" a Federal bill to protect the dwindling bison herds, and in 1875 General Philip Sheridan pleaded to a joint session of Congress to slaughter the herds, to deprive the Indians of their source of food. By 1884, the American Bison was close to extinction.
Subsequent settlers harvested bison bones to be sold for
fertilizer. It was an important source of supplemental income for poorer
farmers, which lasted from the early 1880s until the early 1890s.
The
last tribal hunt of the Omaha, December 1876 to March 1877. After more
than 30 camp moves, the hunters finally found a herd 400 miles outside
the Omaha Reservation (Nebraska). In 1912, Gilmore secured the account
of the hunting expedition into Kansas from Francis La Flesche. La
Flesche was one of the Omaha scouts looking for a game. (Route
approximately).
Early reservation era final hunts
During the 1870s and 1880s, more and more tribes went on their last great bison hunt.
Led by Chief Washakie, around 1,800 Shoshones in the Wind River Indian Reservation
in Wyoming started in October 1874. Going north, the men, women, and
children crossed the border of the reservation. Scouts came back with
news of buffalo near Gooseberry Creek. The hunters got around 125 bison.
Fewer hunters left the reservation over the next two years and those
who went focused on elk, deer, and other game.
The final hunt of the Omaha in Nebraska took place in December 1876.
Hidatsa rebel Crow Flies High and his group established themselves on the Fort Buford
Military Reservation, North Dakota, at the start of the 1870s and
hunted bison in the Yellowstone area until the game went scarce during
the next decade.
Indian agents, with insufficient funds, accepted long hunting
expeditions of the Flathead and Pend d'Oreille to the plains in the late
1870s. In the early 1880s, the buffalo were gone.
The Gros Ventre left the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Montana for a hunt north of Milk River in 1877. Chief Jerry Running Fisher enlisted as a scout at Fort Assinniboine in 1881. "His camp stayed close to the troops when they patrolled, so they hunted undisturbed by enemy tribes." Two years later, the buffalo were all but gone.
In June 1882, more than 600 Lakota and Yanktonai hunters located a big herd on the plains far west of the Standing Rock Agency. In this last hunt, they got around 5,000 animals.
Bison population crash and its effect on Indigenous people
Following
the Civil War, the U.S. had ratified roughly 400 treaties with the
Plains tribes but went on to break much of these in pursuit of the settler-colonialist belief in Manifest Destiny. The bison population crash represented a loss of spirit, land, and autonomy for most Indigenous People at this time. The effects of the collapse have been wide-ranging and persistent:
Once amongst the tallest people in
the world, the generations of bison-reliant people born after the
slaughter lost their entire height advantage. By the early twentieth
century, child mortality was 16 percentage points higher and the
probability of reporting an occupation 19 percentage points lower in
bison nations compared with nations that were never reliant on the
bison. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and into the
present, income per capita has remained 25% lower, on average, for bison
nations.
Loss of land
Much
of the land delegated to Indigenous tribes during this westward
expansion were barren tracts of land, far from any buffalo herds. These
reservations were not sustainable for Natives, who relied on bison for
food. One of these reservations was the Sand Creek Reservation in
southeastern Colorado. The nearest buffalo herd was over two hundred
miles away, and many Cheyennes began leaving the reservation, forced to
hunt livestock of nearby settlers and passing wagon trains.
Loss of food source
Plains
Indians adopted a nomadic lifestyle, one which depended on bison
location for their food source. Bison is high in protein levels and low
in fat content and contributes to the wholesome diet of Native
Americans. Additionally, they used every edible part of the
bison—organs, brains, fetuses, and placental membranes included.
Loss of autonomy
As
a consequence of the great bison slaughter, they became more heavily
dependent on the U.S. Government and American traders for their needs.
Many military men recognized the bison slaughter as a way of reducing
the autonomy of Indigenous Peoples. For instance, Lieutenant Colonel
Dodge, a high-ranking military officer, once said in a conversation with
Frank H. Mayer: "Mayer, there's no two ways about it, either the
buffalo or the Indian must go. Only when the Indian becomes absolutely
dependent on us for his every need, will we be able to handle him. He's
too independent with the buffalo. But if we kill the buffalo we conquer
the Indian. It seems a more humane thing to kill the buffalo than the
Indian, so the buffalo must go."
" The country’s highest generals, politicians, and even then
President Ulysses S. Grant saw the destruction of buffalo as solution to
the country’s “Indian Problem".”
Even Richard Henry Pratt,
founder of the Carlisle Indian School and a Tenth Cavalry lieutenant in
the Red River War, discussed this strategy after his retirement: "The
generation of the buffalo was ordered as a military measure because it
was plain that the Indians could not be controlled on their reservations
as long as their greatest resource, the buffalo, were so plentiful."
The destruction of bison signaled the end of the Indian Wars, and
consequently their movement towards reservations. When the Texas
legislature proposed a bill to protect the bison, General Sheridan
disapproved of it, stating, "These men have done more in the last two
years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian
question, than the entire regular army has done in the last forty years.
They are destroying the Indians' commissary. It is a well-known fact
that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great
disadvantage. Send them powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting
peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are
exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle."
Spiritual effects
Skin effigy of a Buffalo used in the Lakota Sun Dance
Most Native American tribes regard the bison as a sacred animal and religious symbol. University of Montana
anthropology professor S. Neyooxet Greymorning stated: "The creation
stories of where buffalo came from put them in a very spiritual place
among many tribes. The buffalo crossed many different areas and
functions, and it was utilized in many ways. It was used in ceremonies,
as well as to make tipi covers that provide homes for people, utensils,
shields, weapons, and parts were used for sewing with the sinew."
In fact, many tribes had "buffalo doctors", who claimed to have learned
from bison in symbolic visions. Also, many Plains tribes used the bison
skull for confessions and blessing burial sites.
Though buffalo were being slaughtered in masses, many tribes
perceived the buffalo as part of the natural world—something guaranteed
to them by the Creator. For some Plains Indigenous peoples, buffalo are known as the first people. Many tribes did not grasp the concept of species extinction.
Thus, when the buffalo began to disappear in great numbers, it was
particularly harrowing to the tribes. As Crow Chief Plenty Coups
described it: "When the buffalo went away, the hearts of my people fell
to the ground, and they could not lift them up again. After this nothing
happened. There was little singing anywhere."
Spiritual loss was rampant; buffalo were an integral part of their
society and they would frequently take part in ceremonies for each
buffalo they killed to honor its sacrifice. To boost morale during this
time, the Sioux and other tribes took part in the Ghost Dance, which consisted of hundreds of people dancing until 100 persons were lying unconscious.
Native Americans served as the caretakers of bison, so their
forced movement towards bison-free reservation areas was particularly
challenging. Upon their arrival to reservations, some tribes asked
government officials if they could hunt cattle the way they hunted
buffalo. During these cattle hunts, Plains tribes would dress up in
their finery, sing bison songs, and attempt to simulate a bison hunt.
These cattle hunts served as a way for the tribes to preserve their
ceremonies, community, and morale. However, the U.S. government soon put
a halt to cattle hunts, choosing to package the beef up for the Native
Americans instead.
Ecological effect
The
mass buffalo slaughter also seriously harmed the ecological health of
the Great Plains region, in which many Indigenous People lived. Unlike
cattle, bison were naturally fit to thrive in the Great Plains
environment; bison's giant heads are naturally fit to drive through snow
making them far more likely to survive harsh winters.
Additionally, bison grazing helps to cultivate the prairie, making it
ripe for hosting a diverse range of plants. Cattle, on the other hand,
eat through vegetation and limit the ecosystem's ability to support a
diverse range of species. Agricultural and residential development of the prairie is estimated to have reduced the prairie to 0.1% of its former area.
The plains region has lost nearly one-third of its prime topsoil since
the onset of the buffalo slaughter. Cattle are also causing water to be
pillaged at rates that are depleting many aquifers of their resources. Research also suggests that the absence of native grasses leads to topsoil erosion—a main contributor to the Dust Bowl and black blizzards of the 1930s.
The famous herd of James "Scotty" Philip
in South Dakota was one of the earliest reintroductions of bison to
North America. In 1899, Philip purchased a small herd (five of them,
including the female) from Dug Carlin, Pete Dupree's brother-in-law,
whose son Fred had roped five calves in the Last Big Buffalo Hunt on the
Grand River in 1881 and taken them back home to the ranch on the Cheyenne River.
Scotty's goal was to preserve the animal from extinction. At the time
of his death in 1911 at 53, Philip had grown the herd to an estimated
1,000 to 1,200 head of bison. A variety of privately owned herds had
also been established, starting from this population.
Michel Pablo & Charles Allard
In
1873, Samuel Walking Coyote, a member of the Pend d'orville tribe,
herded seven orphan calves along the Flathead Reservation west of the
Rocky Mountain divide. In 1899, he sold 13 of these bison to ranchers
Charles Allard and Michel Pablo for $2,000 in gold.
Michel Pablo and Charles Allard spent more than 20 years assembling one
of the largest collections of purebred bison on the continent (by the
time of Allard's death in 1896, the herd numbered 300). In 1907, after
U.S. authorities declined to buy the herd, Pablo struck a deal with the
Canadian government and shipped most of his bison northward to the newly
created Elk Island National Park.
The Yellowstone Park Bison Herd
formed naturally from a few bison that remained in the Yellowstone Park
area after the great slaughter at the end of the 19th century. Yellowstone National Park
is one of the very few areas where wild bison were never completely
extirpated. It is the only continuously wild bison herd in the United
States. Numbering between 3,000 and 3,500, the Yellowstone Park bison herd
is descended from a remnant population of 23 individual bison that
survived the mass slaughter of the 19th century by hiding out in the
Pelican Valley of Yellowstone Park. In 1902, a captive herd of 21 plains
bison was introduced to the Lamar Valley
in Yellowstone and managed as livestock until the 1960s, when a policy
of natural regulation was adopted by the park. Many of the national
parks, in particular the Yellowstone National Park, are a direct result
of the guilt that many felt regarding the buffalo slaughter of the Great
Plains.
Antelope Island
The Antelope Island bison herd is an isolated bison herd on Utah's Antelope Island and was founded from 12 animals that came from a private ranch in Texas in the late 1800s. The Antelope Island bison herd
fluctuates between 550 and 700 and is one of the largest publicly owned
bison herds in the nation. The herd contains some unique genetic traits
and has been used to improve the genetic diversity of American bison, however, as is the case with most bison herds, some genes from domestic cattle have been found in the Antelope Island Bison Herd.
Molly Goodnight
The last of the remaining "southern herd" in Texas were saved before extinction in 1876. Charles Goodnight's wife Molly encouraged him to save some of the last relict bison that had taken refuge in the Texas Panhandle.
Extremely committed to saving this herd, she went as far as to rescue
some young orphaned buffaloes and even bottle-fed and cared for them
until adulthood. By saving these few plains bison, she was able to
establish an impressive buffalo herd near the Palo Duro Canyon. Peaking at 250 in 1933, the last of the southern buffalo would become known as the Goodnight herd. The descendants of this southern herd were moved to Caprock Canyons State Park near Quitaque, Texas, in 1998.
Austin Corbin
In 1904 the naturalist Ernest Harold Baynes (1868–1925) was appointed conservator of the Corbin Parkgame reserve in New Hampshire (on the edge of the Blue Mountain Forest), by Austin Corbin, Jr. (d.1938), whose father, the banker and railroad entrepreneur Austin Corbin (1827–1896) had established it. Known as the "Blue Mountain Forest Association", it was a limited membership proprietary hunting club, the park for which comprised 26,000 acres, covering the townships of Cornish, Croydon, Grantham, Newport, and Plainfield.
Corbin Sr. imported American bison from Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, Manitoba, and Texas, and donated bison to other American zoos and preserves. He also imported exotic species from Europe and Canada, including wild boar from the Black Forest of Germany.
From a natural level of 60 million in America, the bison population had
been reduced by human activity to just 1,000 by the 1890s, and in 1904,
160 of those animals lived within Corbin Park. The Corbin herd was destroyed in the 1940s following an outbreak of brucellosis.
Baynes was famous for his tame bison, and for driving around the park in a carriage pulled by a pair of bison. Amongst his published works is War Whoop and Tomahawk: The Story of Two Buffalo Calves (1929). Baynes commented:
"Of all the works of the late Mr.
Austin Corbin, the preservation of that herd of bison was the one that
would earn his country’s deepest gratitude. His experiment led to the
founding of the American Bison Society and was connected, directly or otherwise, with the formation of some of our national parks".
Modern bison resurgence efforts
Many other bison herds are in the process of being created or have been created in state parks and national parks, and on private ranches, with individuals taken from the existing main 'foundation herds'. An example is the Henry Mountains bison herd in Central Utah which was founded in 1941 with bison that were relocated from Yellowstone National Park.
This herd now numbers approximately 400 individuals and in the last
decade, steps have been taken to expand this herd to the mountains of
the Book Cliffs, also in Utah.
One of the largest privately owned herds, numbering 2,500, in the US, is on the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma which is owned by the Nature Conservancy. Ted Turner is the largest private owner of bison with about 50,000 on several different ranches.
The current American bison
population has been growing rapidly and is estimated at 350,000
compared to an estimated 60 to 100 million in the mid-19th century. Most current herds, however, are genetically polluted or partly crossbred with cattle. Today there are only four genetically unmixed, free-roaming, public bison herds and only two that are also free of brucellosis: the Henry Mountains bison herd and the Wind Cave bison herd. A founder population of 16 animals from the Wind Cave bison herd was re-established in Montana in 2005 by the American Prairie Foundation. The herd now numbers nearly 800 and roams a 14,000-acre (57 km2) grassland expanse on American Prairie.
The end of the ranching era and the onset of the natural
regulation era set into motion a chain of events that have led to the
bison of Yellowstone Park migrating to lower elevations outside the park
in search of winter forage. The presence of wild bison in Montana is
perceived as a threat to many cattle ranchers, who fear that the small
percentage of bison that carry brucellosis will infect livestock and
cause cows to abort their first calves. However, there has never been a
documented case of brucellosis being transmitted to cattle from wild
bison. The management controversy that began in the early 1980s
continues with advocacy groups arguing that the herd should be protected
as a distinct population segment under the Endangered Species Act.
Native American bison conservation efforts
Many
conservation measures have been taken by Native American tribes to
preserve and grow the bison population as well. Of these Native
conservation efforts, the Inter-Tribal Bison Council was formed in 1990,
composed of 56 tribes in 19 states.
These tribes represent a collective herd of more than 15,000 bison and
focus on reestablishing herds on tribal lands to promote culture,
revitalize spiritual solidarity, and restore the ecosystem. Some
Inter-Tribal Bison Council members argue that the bison's economic value
is one of the main factors driving its resurgence. Bison serves as a
low-cost substitute for cattle and can withstand the winters in the
Plains region far easier than cattle.
A Native American conservation effort that has been gaining
ground is the Buffalo Field Campaign. Founded in 1996 by Mike Mease,
Sicango Lakota, and Rosalie Little Thunder, the Buffalo Field Campaign
hopes to get bison migrating freely in Montana and beyond. The Buffalo
Field Campaign challenges Montana's DOL officials, who slaughtered 1631
bison in the winter of 2007-2008 in a food search away from Yellowstone
National Park. Founder Mike Mease commented in regards to DOL officials:
"It's disheartening what they're doing to buffalo. It's marked with
prejudice that exists from way back. I think the whole problem with
white society is there's this fear of anything wild. They're so scared
of anything they can't control, whereas the First Nations take pride in
being part of it and protecting the wild because of its importance. Our
culture is so far removed from that, and afraid of it."
Additionally, many smaller tribal groups aim to reintroduce bison
to their native lands. The Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, which was restored
in 1990, has a herd of roughly 100 bison in two pastures. Similarly, the
Southern Ute Tribe in Colorado has raised nearly 30 bison in a 350-acre
fenced pasture.
According to Rutgers University Professor Frank Popper, bison
restoration brings better meat and ecological health to the plains
region, in addition to restoring bison-native American relations.
However, there is a considerable risk involved with restoring the bison
population: brucellosis. If bison are introduced in large numbers, the
risk of brucellosis is high.
Bison conservation: a symbol of Native American healing
For
some spokesmen, the resurgence of the bison population reflects a
cultural and spiritual recovery from the effects of bison hunting in the
mid-1800s. By creating groups such as the Inter-Tribal Bison
Cooperative and the Buffalo Field Campaign, Native Americans are hoping
to not only restore the bison population but also improve solidarity and
morale among their tribes. "We recognize the bison as a symbol of
strength in unity," stated Fred Dubray, former president of the
Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative. "We believe that reintroduction of the
buffalo to tribal lands will help heal the spirit of both the Indian
people and the buffalo. To reestablish healthy buffalo populations is to
reestablish hope for Indian people."
21st century hunting
Hunting of wild bison is legal in some states and provinces where public herds require culling to maintain a target population.
Canada
Alberta
In Alberta, where one of only two continuously wild herds of bison exist in North America at Wood Buffalo National Park, bison are hunted to protect disease-free public (reintroduced) and private herds of bison.
United States
Montana
In
Montana, a public hunt was reestablished in 2005, with 50 permits being
issued. The Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission increased the
number of tags to 140 for the 2006/2007 season. Advocacy groups claim
that it is premature to reestablish the hunt, given the bison's lack of
habitat and wildlife status in Montana.
Though the number is usually several hundred, up to more than a thousand bison from the Yellowstone Park Bison Herd have been killed in some years when they wander north from the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park into private and state lands of Montana. This hunting is done because of fears that the Yellowstone bison, which are often infected with brucellosis
will spread that disease to local domestic cattle. To date, no credible
instance of bison-to-cattle transmission has ever been established,
recorded or proven although there is some evidence of transmission
between wild caribou and bison.
Utah
The State of Utah maintains two bison herds, and some bison hunting is permitted for both of them – the Antelope Island bison herd (which contains 550 to 700 individuals) and the Henry Mountains bison herd
(250 to 400 individuals), though the licenses are limited and tightly
controlled. A game ranger is also generally sent out with any hunters to
help them find and select the bison to kill. In this way, hunting is
used as a part of the wildlife management strategy and to help cull less
desirable individuals.
Every year all the bison in the Antelope Island bison herd are rounded up to be examined and vaccinated. Then, most of them are turned loose to wander Antelope Island.
Approximately 100 bison are sold at an auction, and hunters are allowed
to kill a half dozen bison. This hunting takes place on Antelope Island
in December each year. Fees from the hunters are used to fund the
maintenance of the Antelope Island State Park and the bison herd.
Hunting is also allowed every year in the Henry Mountains bison
herd in Utah. The Henry Mountains herd has sometimes numbered up to 500
individuals but the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has determined that the carrying capacity
for the Henry Mountains bison herd is 325 individuals. Some of the
extra individuals have been transplanted, but most of them are not
transplanted or sold, so hunting is the major tool used to control their
population. "In 2009, 146 public once-in-a-lifetime Henry Mountain
bison hunting permits were issued." Most years, 50 to 100 licenses are issued to hunt bison in the Henry Mountains.
Alaska
Bison were also reintroduced to Alaska in 1928, and both domestic and wild herds are found in a few parts of the state. The state grants limited permits to hunt wild bison each year.
Mexico
In
2001, the United States government donated some bison calves from South
Dakota and Colorado to the Mexican government for the reintroduction of
bison to Mexico's nature reserves. These reserves included El Uno Ranch
at Janos and Santa Elena Canyon, Chihuahua, and Boquillas del Carmen, Coahuila, which are located on the southern shore of the Rio Grande and the grasslands bordering Texas and New Mexico.