Northeastern Naturalist
1
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
The Dog Days of Winter: Indigenous Dogs, Indian Hunters,
and Wintertime Subsistence in the Northeast
Strother E. Roberts*
Abstract - Prior to European settlement, indigenous members of the species Canis lupus
familiaris (Domestic Dog) was, aside from humans, the most common large predator in the
North American northeast. Dogs served Indian communities throughout the year, but their
value increased over the winter. Light enough to run over packed snow, Domestic Dogs
chased down Alces alces (Moose) and Odocoileus virginianus (White-tailed Deer). They
protected food stores from vermin, provided warmth at night, and acted as a meat source
during times of dearth. Domestic Dogs facilitated the fur trade by sniffing out the frozen
lodges of Castor canadensis (Beaver). Although they often hunted and scavenged autonomously,
it was through their symbiotic partnership with humans that indigenous Dogs
helped to define the Northeast’s early modern ecology.
Introduction
The role of Canis lupus familiaris L. (Domestic Dog, hereafter Dog) in historical
landscapes is little researched and poorly understood. As in most other areas of
human habitation, Dogs have long been ubiquitous in northeastern North America
(this article will focus on the lands stretching from the Great Lakes to the Canadian
Maritimes). In the centuries before European settlement, indigenous Dogs certainly
would have outnumbered any given wild predator population. Few records offer
concrete numbers for indigenous Dog populations in the early contact era, but
those (mostly French) European chroniclers who remarked on the role of Dogs in
American Indian societies agree that such communities were home equally to humans
and “large numbers” of Dogs (Biard 1898, Champlain 1880:237, Charlevoix
1761, Le Jeune 1897b, Rosier 1905, Sagard 1939). For example, Nicholas Denys,
a French fur trader, claimed that among the mid-17th-century Mi’kmaq “[t]here is
no hunter who has not from seven to eight of them [Dogs]” (Denys 1908:430). Assuming
that adult male hunters made up approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of
Mi’kmaw society, and that Denys’ estimate is anywhere near accurate, Dogs would
have rivaled and perhaps surpassed the number of people living in some historical
American Indian communities. Even if Denys exaggerated, he and other European
observers left behind a clear picture of the importance of Dogs to Indian societies
of the 17th-century Northeast.
Reading through records from the 17th and 18th centuries makes clear that Dogs
played a number of important roles within these societies. These records also
strongly suggest that Dogs’ contributions varied seasonally. While Dogs were useful
to some degree throughout the year—as hunting companions and for keeping
*Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME; seroberts@bowdoin.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Thomas Andrews
Winter Ecology:Insights from Biology and History
2017 Northeastern Naturalist 24(Special Issue 7):H1–H21
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
2
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
downvermin—they exhibited their greatest value during the cold weather months
that stretched from late September into March. It was during these months that indigenous
Dogs contributed most to Native American subsistence and, consequently,
had their greatest impact on regional wildlife populations.
Dogs were ubiquitous in early modern American Indian villages. Allowed to run
loose, they entered lodges and left at whim. European visitors often expressed displeasure
at these undisciplined packs which, to European eyes, often looked more
like the standard Canis lupus L. (Wolf) than proper domesticated Dogs (Anderson
2004). Yet as distasteful and unruly as European observers tended to find indigenous
Dogs, they could not overlook the considerable advantages that these Dogs brought
to the Indian communities in which they lived. Dogs stood as sentries, warning of
the approach of human enemies and keeping dangerous predators, like Ursus americanus
(Pallas) (Black Bear), at a distance (Charlevoix 1761). They also provided
companionship and, on cold nights, warmth. French missionary Father Paul Le
Jeune, in writing the narrative of his early 17th-century travels with the Innu (Montagnais),
used a considerable amount of ink complaining about the inconvenience
of sharing his lodgings with large packs of restless and often flea-ridden Dogs. He
did, however, recognize that the animals had their value. In cold weather, his hosts’
Dogs would sleep indoors and Le Jeune recalled occasions where they “came and
lay down sometimes upon my shoulders, sometimes upon my feet, and as I only had
one blanket to serve both as covering and mattress, I was not sorry for this protection,
willingly restoring to them a part of the heat which I drew from them” (Le
Jeune 1897b:43). Of course, the real value of indigenous Dogs lay not in their ability
to serve as living blankets, but in the crucial role that they played in contributing
to native subsistence—something that was especially true during those cold months
when Le Jeune actually came to appreciate their company.
Indigenous Dogs as Wintertime Hunters
Non-agricultural coastal communities, such as those of the Mi’kmaq (who are
very well represented in the historical record) and certain other Wabanaki groups,
practiced a seasonally migratory system of subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering.
During the warmer months from approximately March to September, Mi’kmaq
families settled into large villages located along the coast or along rivers near their
mouths, occupying a territory that embraced Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, and Prince
Edward Islands, and that stretched north to the mouth of the St. Lawrence River.
During these months, subsistence activities focused on the collection of marine resources—
fish, shellfish, and marine mammals—and supplies of dried fish were laid
in for wintertime rations. The fruits of the sea were supplemented by plant foods
gathered from the near coastal environment, by large numbers of waterfowl hunted
in the late spring and summer, and by limited hunting of terrestrial game species
(Prins 1996). Dogs played an important part in this pursuit, and may have assisted
in the hunting of waterfowl (the evidence is ambiguous), but seem to have had no
role in the other warm-weather subsistence activities practiced by coastal communities
(Charlevoix 1761, Denys 1908, Russell 1980). Seventeenth-century Jesuit
Northeastern Naturalist
3
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
missionary Father Pierre Biard (1989:85) confirmed the central importance of Dogs
to Wabanaki hunting when he wrote of the expectation that young Mi’kmaw men
complete an apprenticeship under an experienced hunter, “for then only can they
have a dog and a bag; that is, have something of their own, and do for themselves”.
But other 17th-century records make clear that Dogs’ centrality to indigenous hunting
shifted with the seasons, waning in the spring and summer and waxing in the
late autumn and winter
In winter, coastal communities, which secured most of their annual calories from
fishing, would turn towards the interior and rely on hunting to get them through
until drawn back to the coastal river mouths of the Northeast by the Osmerus
mordax (Mitchill) (Smelt) spawning season in spring. During these months, from
roughly late September through March, villages would break into smaller familybased
hunting bands and head inland, ranging through New Brunwsick and eastern
Quebec . The winter hunt was split into 2 distinct periods—one in early winter and
one in late winter—by the Microgadus tomcod (Walbaum) (Tomcod) spawning
season that drew hunting bands back to the coast for ice fishing from late December
through January (Biard 1898). From late September through mid-December, and
again from February through March, coastal hunters relied on their Dogs to track,
course, and help bring down big game like Alces alces L. (Moose), Odocoileus virginianus
(Zimmerman) (White-tailed Deer), Rangifer tarandus L. (Caribou), and
Black Bear, as well as smaller prey like Castor canadensis Kuhl. (Beaver), Lontra
canadensis (Schreber) (River Otter), Erethizon dorsatum L. (Porcupine), and Lepus
americanus (Erxleben) (Snowshoe Hare) (Sagard 1939).
As French missionary and Recollect Friar Gabriel Sagard traveled down the
St. Lawrence River to the eastern shores of Lake Huron in 1623, he observed
firsthand how Indians he referred to as “the nomad savages” made use of Dogs to
hunt hibernating game during the winter (Sagard 1939). These “nomads”—nonagricultural
hunter-gatherers who migrated seasonally to exploit different regional
resource-bases—would have included the coastal Wabanakis (the Mi’kmaq and
culturally and linguistically related peoples in what is today Maine and New
Hampshire) and Innu (of southern Labrador and the lands north of the eastern St.
Lawrence Valley), as well as inland groups like the Algonquins (who lived north
of the western St. Lawrence Valley, stretching to the northeastern shores of Lake
Ontario). “In winter”, these groups would “leave the shores of the sea and rivers,
and encamp in the woods, wherever they know there is game” (Sagard 1939:100).
Wabanaki bands, for example, spent most of the year harvesting marine resources
or hunting waterfowl along the coast or on the banks of major rivers, but winter
brought them inland, ranging across present-day northern New England, New
Brunswick, and Quebec (Wickman 2015). Hunting bands would range the inland
countryside with “dogs that follow them”, and although Sagard (1939:100) noted
that “these do not bark, yet they understand quite well how to discover the lair
of the animal they are looking for.” Once roused from their dens, Porcupines and
hibernating game, like Black Bears, would be pursued by men and Dogs. Native
hunters set “their dogs to worry” the prey “until they [the hunters] have brought
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
4
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
it down” (Sagard 1939: 100). English author John Josselyn (1674:91), declared
Black Bear meat, in particular, to be “excellent Venison”, especially in the late fall
and early winter after the bears had grown fat from gorging themselves on acorns.
However, he observed that in New England, “there is none dares to attempt to kill
him but the Indian[s]” who used Dogs to chase and tree bears so that the they could
shoot and spear the fearsome creatures safely from below. The Indian hunters would
then “cut open the belly”, give the entrails of “the quarry to the dogs, have a feast,
and carry off the remainder” (Sagard 1939:100).
Dogs, as the above passages illustrate, helped the natives of the Northeast
transform winter from a time of potential famine into one of feasting. Although
it may seem counter-intuitive, especially cold snowy winters were not necessarily
bad news for the native communities of the Northeast. As Thomas Wickman
(2015) has recently shown, winter was, in fact, often a “season of abundance” for
northeastern Indians. While wintertime conditions varied from month to month
and year to year, most early modern northeastern winters seem to have brought
enough snow and cold enough temperatures to produce stable, seasonal snowpacks.
Northeastern Native hunters wore snowshoes that allowed them to travel over the
top of snowpacks in search of game. Their Dogs’ wolfish heritage allowed them to
do the same without the aid of technology. A lean build, roughly equal dispersal of
weight over 4 limbs, and splayed toes on a broad paw allow Wolves to pursue game
across snowfields without sinking into drifts (Mech and Peterson 2003). European
accounts show that Dogs were able to do the same, suggesting that they must have
retained some of their wolfish kin’s morphological adaptations for wintertime hunting.
Snowshoes thus granted northeastern American Indians an advantage that their
canine companions had acquired naturally through the graces of evolution.
Snowpacks, then, offered advantages to certain species of the Northeast (most
notably for this article, humans and their canine companions), while posing an important
obstacle to others, such as Moose and White-tailed Deer (Wickman 2015).
It was actually these 2 large ungulate game species, rather than hibernating species
like Black Bears and Porcupines, that were most important to the wintertime
sustenance of native northeastern communities and which were, consequently,
mentioned most often mentioned by 17th- and 18th-century European traders and
settlers when recording Indian hunting practices in the region.
In 1672, seventeenth-century French trader and colonial administrator Nicolas
Denys drew on his 30 years’ experience of life in Acadia to explain how the region’s
Indians benefitted from the assistance of Dogs when hunting in both warm and cold
weather. In the spring, summer, and autumn, the Indian hunters of Acadia would
turn their Dogs loose to track Moose through woodland, swamp, and plain. When a
Dog encountered a Moose, it would howl to alert the human hunters trailing behind.
The Dog would then seek to seize the Moose by its nose or ears, holding it in place
until the hunters and other members of the hunting pack could arrive. When the human
hunters arrived, the quarry would often break and run, pursued now by the full
pack of Dogs leaping to grab hold of face or flank. In time, exhaustion from the
chase, together with wounds from biting Dogs and the spears and arrows of hunters
would bring the great beast down (Denys 1908).
Northeastern Naturalist
5
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
Winter, far from proving an impediment to hunters, actually increased the ease
with which Moose could be taken. As in warmer months, hunting Dogs assisted in
tracking game. If a single Moose were encountered, Dogs and hunters would pursue
their quarry through the snows. Moose are well suited for traversing ground bearing
up to 2 feet of snow cover. Their long legs allow for a trotting gait that keeps their
torsos clear of the snow and minimizes the amount of extra effort required to push
through accumulated snowpack. They would, however, eventually grow fatigued
when coursed by a pack of Dogs who enjoyed the advantage of ranging over the top
of the snow. In deeper drifts, the Moose’s long legs offered less advantage and the
creature would tire more quickly. Heavy snows thus offered the greatest advantage
to American Indians hunting Moose with Dogs. As Denys (1908:428) observed,
a deep snowpack topped by a firm crust “bears the Dogs, but the Moose does not
find good going … he sinks into the snow, which fatigues him greatly”. Eventually,
worn out, the Moose would either halt and perhaps collapse from fatigue or choose
to turn and face its pursuers.
Such hunts were not without their dangers. Dogs were constantly in peril of
being speared by antler or crushed beneath hooves as the Moose sought to fend
off its attackers. Josselyn (1764:137) wrote of a Moose pursued by Indian hunters
constantly “yerking out his heels (for he strikes like a horse)” whenever “any of
their dogs … come near”. Recollect missionary Chrétien Le Clercq, who ministered
among the Mi’kmaq for 7 years, tells of Moose charging their attackers, knocking
them aside, and burying them in snow drifts, sometimes crippling human hunters
and killing Dogs outright (Le Clercq 1910). Against such formidable prey, Dogs
played a crucial role in protecting human hunters from harm. The assistance of
Dogs—snarling, snapping, and keeping the attacking Moose at bay—allowed Indian
hunters to dispatch their prey from a safe distance using spears and arrows
(Denys 1908).
Hunting Moose in herds posed a slightly different challenge. Moose are usually
solitary browsers, but often congregate closer together in winter as individuals and
mother-calf pairs seek shelter and forage in stands of softwoods where they browse
on the bark and shoots of young trees. The coniferous canopies of these woodlands
keep the ground below relatively snowless, at least compared to neighboring areas
that are open or home to stands of deciduous woods, which are leafless in winter.
The constant milling about of a number of Moose within these constrained areas
serves to trample down what snow cover does exist creating a “Moose yard”, which
in Denys’ (1908:428) experience could be up to “a league and a half” (~4.5 miles)
in circumference (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998 ). These yards offered a space
where herd members enjoyed ease of movement between their arboreal food source
and locally strategic sites such as water and salt licks. Under such circumstances,
human and canine hunters could not exploit the advantage that deep snow offered
on untrampled grounds. Instead, hunting in these wintertime Moose yards more
closely resembled summer hunts. Dogs would aid Indian hunters in locating a herd
and then both Dogs and humans would course the Moose, which would flee as a
herd. Upon reaching the edge of their yard, the Moose would begin circling its
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
6
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
perimeter, making wide circuits as they attempted to evade their pursuers. At each
pass, waiting hunters would spear or shoot 1 member of the stampeding herd and
then wait for the next pass to take down another. Any Moose who scattered beyond
the yard and into the deep snows would be pursued by Dogs who would track and
hound it until the human hunters had finished with the main herd and were ready
to track down their remaining prey. In such fashion, hunters could expect to take
maybe half a dozen Moose at their ambush site, plus any strays that their Dogs had
tracked and managed to bring to bay (Denys 1908).
While Moose were the preferred big-game of the Wabanaki bands of the east,
White-tailed Deer were far more important for Indian nations living farther west
and inland. This is primarily because White-tailed Deer were scarce in the Canadian
Maritimes; their pre-19th-century range was limited largely to more southeasterly
coastal regions (Wickman 2015). In contrast, it was Moose that were (relatively)
scarce as one ascended the St. Lawrence and approached the Great Lakes, while
deer became increasingly common. The Huron villages north of Lake Ontario, for
example, relied on agriculture and fishing for the majority of the calories that they
consumed during the year, but supplemented their diets with game. Deer were the
single most important source of meat for the Hurons and other agricultural nations
of the eastern Great Lakes region (Stewart and Finlayson 2000, Trigger 1969). Algonquins
and western bands of Innu also relied heavily on deer, and it is from this
last group that we have the best picture of what wintertime deer hunts looked like
among the natives of the Northeast.
Samuel de Champlain (1880:237), who explored large portions of the Northeast
in 1609–1610, recorded that the Innu kept “large numbers” of Dogs “for hunting”,
but failed to provide the details of what role these Dogs played in the hunt. Champlain
did, however, provide a description of the great communal drives that the Innu
and Algonquins used to hunt Deer (a hunting technique common throughout the
Northeast and elsewhere). Hunters would construct “V”-shaped hedges by weaving
together tree limbs with live trunks and bushes. The point of the “V” would
lead into a small corral constructed in the same manner. Hunters would spread
out and walk through a stretch of woodlands making as much noise as possible,
driving deer before them into the fenced “V”. A second group of hunters would
then dispatch the animals as they entered the pen at the drive’s end (Champlain
1880). Dogs presumably assisted northeastern human hunters in herding and corralling
Deer towards their eventual slaughter, a role they commonly filled among
native communities living elsewhere (Benedict 2005, Brink 2005, Lescarbot 1896,
Lewis 1994, Medicine Crow 1978, Sundstrom 2000). Pierre François Xavier de
Charlevoix (1761), a French Jesuit working in Quebec a century after its founding
by Champlain, affirmed that the Indians of 18th-century Canada used Dogs during
their warm-weather hunting drives, suggesting that the same was likely true of the
wintertime hunts that Champlain witnessed. Likewise, William Wood (1634), in
his New England’s Prospect, told of hunting Dogs chasing deer through the snow,
a practice perhaps learned from Indian neighbors. Champlain (1880) recorded a
series of successful drives in which a party of ~24 hunters took a total of 120 deer
Northeastern Naturalist
7
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
during the month of November. The hunters moved on from these hunting grounds
in early December, timing their departure with the final freezing up of the rivers
and marshes in the region. Loaded down with venison, Champlain and his hosts set
out across the frozen countryside to rendezvous at a Huron town and join a military
expedition against the Iroquois.
Interestingly, Champlain makes no mention of Dogs being used to transport this
haul of venison. In fact, references to northeastern Indians using Dogs as beasts of
burden are surprisingly few. The Wabanaki nations, at least, occasionally made use
of Dogs for their motive power during the months when snow covered the ground.
Nicolas Denys (1908:360) recorded that the 17th-century Mi'kmaq, when travelling
inland, harnessed their Dogs “like horses” to small sledges which served to “carry
all the outfit of the hunters”. Thus unencumbered, Mi'kmaw hunting parties, accompanied
by their Dogs, could easily traverse the snowpack in search of game.
The Abenaki war party that took Deerfield resident Stephen Williams captive in
1704 (during Queen Anne’s War), used “slays & Dogs” to carry the men wounded
during their raids on English settlements, suggesting a broader familiarity with the
technology (Williams 1889:5).
Most of the communal drives undertaken by the Innu and other hunter-gatherer
groups would have taken place in the late fall or during the winter, when deer are
most likely to congregate in large herds in those areas where forage is most readily
available. Family groups of does and fawns begin to congregate into larger herds in
late autumn, from roughly late November through early December. These herds seek
out dense stands of softwoods, where up to 50% of snowfall may be sequestered in
the canopies of trees. This coverage reduces snow depths on the woodlands floor below,
making travel and foraging easier for deer. In mid-December, as the annual rut
draws to an end, bucks also seek out these areas. Herding together in these wintertime
deer yards allows deer to conserve energy as the trampling of multiple sets of hooves
maintains a trail network connecting access to sheltering cover and food resources.
Herding also offers some protection against wild predators, but made populations
more vulnerable to the sort of drive hunting historically practiced by northeastern
Indians (Smith 1991, Wiley and Hulsey 2010).
Hunters from agricultural Huron villages operated on a schedule similar to that
of their non-agricultural neighbors, staging group hunts towards the end of autumn
and then again during the deep winter (Trigger 1969). This timing allowed the
hunters to take advantage of the wintertime herding behavior of deer to increase
the efficiency of the hunt and, presumably like the Algonquin and Innu hunters
observed by Champlain, to make use of frozen landscapes to ease the transport of
large quantities of venison and hides back to their villages (Stewart and Finlayson
2000). The swarms of Dogs that Sagard encountered in Huron villages would have
contributed by pursuing deer during these large drives. These group hunts generally
took place at some distance from Huron settlements because deer tended to be
scarce in the immediate neighborhood of Huron villages. Presumably this scarcity
was the result of hunting pressures placed on local game populations by the large
populations housed in the agricultural villages of Huronia (Trigger 1969). Hunters
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
8
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
stalked individual deer and may also have pursued them with Dogs while hunting
individually or in small groups. Dried meat from these wintertime hunts played a
crucial role in the subsistence cycle of the agricultural communities living around
the Great Lakes, helping villages through the relatively lean months of early spring
until migratory fish and bird populations returned and wild berries began to appear
(MacLeod 2012, Steckley 2007).
The important role that Dogs played in assuring a successful hunt, illustrated
by these 17th-century observers, is further suggested by recent research into modern
hunting techniques. A Finnish study on 21st-century Moose hunting (a popular
wintertime activity in Finland) suggests the importance that Dogs can play in a successful
hunt (Ruusila and Pesonen 2004). The study found that groups hunting with
Dogs were more successful at locating and killing game and increased the amount
of meat they brought home by 56% per hunter compared to groups not using Dogs.
Generally speaking, the more Dogs associated with a group, the more successful a
hunt that group was likely to have. Hunting with Dogs had a particularly significant
effect on the number of Moose killed by those hunting in small groups (1–9 humans
working together). Dogs were especially important for hunting in areas where game
was scarce. The ability of a spread-out pack of Dogs to track and locate a Moose by
smell over a large area, and then to hold the animal in place until trailing humans
arrived, proved critical for hunters who otherwise may have ranged over a considerable
swath of countryside without ever encountering evidence of their quarry
(Ruusila and Pesonen 2004, Shipman 2015).
Another recent study, this time from southeastern Ontario, confirms the benefits
of hunting deer with Dogs. This study found that hunting camps that included 2 or
more Dogs could expect to take 26% more deer per hunter per day compared to
hunters operating without Dogs. These modern sport hunters accompanied by Dogs
also wounded, but failed to track down, 40% more deer than Dogless hunters, suggesting
that subsistence hunters (with a greater incentive for recovering wounded
game) may have been able to even further improve their take when partnering with
Dogs. This study, based on 24 years of data collected during the Canadian Whitetailed
Deer hunting season (in November), found that hunters accompanied by
Dogs were especially successful during snowy days, although the mere presence of
snow on the ground did not seem to increase the odds of a successful hunt (Godwin
et al. 2013). This finding can likely be explained by the earliness of the modern
hunting season, when firm snowpacks have not yet had a time to form. Another
study has found domestic Dogs to be especially effective hunters of deer when operating
in snow (Lowry and McArthur 1978). In fact, studies from throughout the
world, focusing on various types of game, have shown that hunting with Dogs can
substantially improve the chances of taking game and increase the amount of meat
yielded from a hunt (Liebenberg 2006, Shipman 2015). Although modern hunters
rely on different tools and hunting strategies than did the 17th-century hunters of
the Northeast, these studies do suggest the valuable role that historical indigenous
Dogs likely played in locating, tracking, and worrying game when operating alongside
their Indian hunting partners.
Northeastern Naturalist
9
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
This advantage would have been of the utmost importance to the Indian
communities of the Northeast, making the difference between a comfortable subsistence
and famine. Prior to European settlement, Native American communities
throughout the Northeast relied on White-tailed Deer or Moose to provide either a
majority or a seasonally critical minority of the protein contained in their diets (for
some protein from fish during warm months surpassed that obtained from venison).
Dogs, both in their roles as independent hunters and by aiding Indian hunters in
their pursuit of Moose and White-tailed Deer, would have played an important role
in regulating population levels of both of these wild ungulates.
By one estimate, the ~20,000 Mi’kmaq who in 1600 inhabited what would
become the Canadian Maritimes would have required ~10,000 Moose to provide
them with enough meat to make it through the 4–5 wintertime months during which
they relied on inland hunting for sustenance (McCabe 1982, Minahan 2013, Prins
1996). This estimate is a rough one and depends on a number of variables—the
relative abundance of other game species, fluctuating populations of both Moose
and Mi’kmaq, etc.—but gives an idea of how the dietary needs of just 1 pre-contact
Indian nation may have impacted the population of this particular wildlife species.
It does not account for the impact of hunting by other Wabanaki groups, the Innu,
or other native nations on the Moose herd of the Northeast. Nor does this figure take
into account the share of meat that would have been due to the Mi’kmaq’s hunting
companions, their Dogs. These considerations would have added to the number of
Moose that Indians needed to hunt to ensure that the dietary needs of their communities
(human and canine) were met. Similarly, groups living farther inland would
have exerted significant downward pressure on White-tailed Deer populations.
Based on the same study as above, the ~30,000 people living in pre-contact Huron/
Wyandot and affiliated villages may have harvested upwards of 100,000 deer
each winter (McCabe 1982, Warrick 2008). Again, this ignores the dietary share of
Huron hunting Dogs, as well as the ability of Dogs to hunt and capture deer while
hunting independently.
Dogs also played an important role in hunting Beaver, especially following the
introduction of the trans-Atlantic fur trade. In warm weather, Indians would break
the dams that held back beaver ponds, thus exposing the lodges in which the Beaver
dwelt. The hunters then had simply to wait for the Beaver to exit their lodge, or, if
impatient, to break open the lodge to spear the Beaver inside. The demands of the
fur trade, however, precluded these hunting practices. The quality of Beaver pelts
vary seasonally, with the animals shedding fur in the spring and summer and growing
thicker coats in the winter. European/Euro-American traders paid a premium
for wintertime pelts and often refused altogether to purchase furs taken during
the warmer months. As a consequence, Indians engaged in the fur trade switched
the bulk of their Beaver-hunting activities to the winter when dams were frozen
solid and the lodges were well hidden under the ice and snow that covered ponds
(Cronon 1983). They relied on the keen noses of their Dogs to locate Beaver, and
then hacked through the ice and wood of the lodge to spear the animals inside (Denys
1908). The Sieur de Diéreville, who observed Indian hunting practices while
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
10
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
travelling through Acadia at the turn of the 18th century, recorded that Beaver would
often escape this initial slaughter and attempt to evade hunters either by fleeing to
shore or by hiding under the ice near breathing holes. A perimeter of Dogs around
the banks of the pond cut of f such escape. As hunters finished with the lodge, they
would call on their Dogs who, as Diéreville noted, “have such good noses that
they never fail to smell them [the Beaver]” even under the ice. Once discovered, the
hunter would smash through the ice with an axe, strike the Beaver on the head, and
seize his quarry (Diéreville 1933, Le Jeune 1897b). The accompanying Figure 1,
a detail from an early 18th-century Franco-Dutch map, illustrates this teamwork
between Dogs and Indian hunters.
While production for the fur trade was undoubtedly the driving motivation behind
hunting Beaver for most of the 17th century onwards, Beaver taken for their
pelts also offered an important source of protein for wintertime hunting bands,
whether they came from agricultural villages or hunter-gatherer communities. Indeed,
as the incentives of the fur trade encouraged hunters to focus more and more
effort on taking Beaver, less time was dedicated to other subsistence activities, and
Beaver meat became an indispensable part of the wintertime diet (Cronon 1983).
Once the valuable pelt was removed, an average-sized Beaver could yield about
9 kg (20 lbs.) of meat, its high fat-content adding to the calories available to the
hunter and his community (Jochim 1981). After 1760, Catholic missionaries and
their native converts could even enjoy Beaver, which the Church chose to designate
as a type of fish, during Lent and fast days. Archaeological remains from one
pre-contact Iroquois site help illustrate the importance that Beaver played in native
diets. Among the excavated middens, Beaver rank as the third most common source
of protein—behind White-tailed Deer and Dogs (Stewart 1991).
If Dogs made the winter hunting of Beaver practical, then they also bear some
responsibility for the wide-ranging ecological changes that followed in the wake of
the 17th-century fur trade. The opportunities to trade for French goods (and, where
possible, for goods supplied by the British and Dutch) drove the native communities
of the Northeast to rapidly deplete the Beaver populations of the region. Beaver
became rare in some areas of the St. Lawrence Valley as early as the 1630s and had
been largely hunted to expiration in the coastal regions inhabited by the Wabanakis
by the 1670s. By the 18th century, the attention of both European traders and Indian
hunters had shifted west to the Great Lakes and north to Hudson’s Bay (Hubbard
1677, Innis 1956). The fur trade left behind a region almost devoid of Beaver, their
dams, and their ponds. The crumbling of beaver dams and the drainage of the ponds
left behind a landscape transformed, missing many thousands of hectares (hundreds
Figure 1, following page. An early 18th-century Franco-Dutch map depicting Indians hunting
Beaver with the help of Domestic Dogs in the foreground. In the background, 2 hunters
urge on their Dogs, which are pursuing and worrying a Moose. To the right, hunters have
treed a bear. This image seems to have been based on Nicolas Deny’s account of Mi’kmaq
hunting practices. (Henri Abraham Chatelain. 1719. Carte Tres Curieuse de la Mer du Sud.
Amsterdam; map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Levanthal Map Center at Boston
Public Library, Boston, MA.)
Northeastern Naturalist
11
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
Figure 1. [Caption on preceding page.]
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
12
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
of thousands of acres) of wetlands, and considerably less biodiverse (Hey and
Philippi 1995, 1999; Johnston and Naiman 1990; Pastore 2014). The wintertime
hunting activities of indigenous Dogs thus had profound consequences for the human
communities with which they partnered, but also for wildlife species and the
northeastern landscape as a whole.
Dogs as Food
Of course, if heavy snows and solid snowpacks could facilitate Dogs as hunters,
less-ideal winter conditions could act as an impediment. An absence or dearth of
snowfall robs Dogs of a part of their advantage over game, although even then, as
in warmer months, they could still play an important role in tracking, coursing, and
bringing game to bay. Especially wet snowfalls or warm temperatures provides a
greater obstacle. Father Pierre Biard, A Jesuit who lived among the Mi’kmaq from
1611–1613, commented on the problems that faced indigenous hunting Dogs under
such conditions. “[W]hen it snows a great deal, and does not freeze over”, Biard
observed, “they [the Mi’kmaq] cannot put their dogs upon the ch ase, because they
sink down … the snow being too soft” (Biard 1898:77). Indian hunters could still
manage in such snows “for they wear snowshoes on their feet which help them
to stay on top”, but they would be denied of their canine assistants. If the tops of
snowbanks failed to freeze and crust over, Dogs, just like the game they pursued,
could break through as they ran, impeding their mobility. In such conditions, Dogs
were likely at a disadvantage compared to their prey. With their longer legs, Deer
could only have moved slowly through snow, but still more quickly than foundering
Dogs. Moose with their lanky legs and high-body clearance, would presumably
have had little trouble escaping Dogs attempting to pursue through soft snows,
especially if snow accumulation was less than 2 feet. Given the attested importance
of Dogs to wintertime hunting, such conditions likely threatened native subsistence,
especially if damp, warm conditions persisted through the early and late
winter hunting seasons. “If the weather then is favorable,” by which Biard meant
consistently frigid, “they live in great abundance, and are as haughty as Princes
and Kings; but if it is against them, they are greatly to be pitied, and often die of
starvation” (Biard 1898:77). But even when adverse weather limited the utility of
Dogs in wintertime hunting, they still had an important role to play in assuring the
subsistence of the Indian communities in which they lived.
Although Dogs are not usually considered a form of livestock, they functioned
as such in Native American societies. In the modern American tradition,
the esoteric category of livestock includes a range of species that are raised and
cared for by people in exchange for their fiber or hides, motive power, and as a
source food (among other uses). Various Indian societies exploited Dogs for one
or all of these purposes. In particular, Dogs, like other forms of livestock, represented
a way to store protein—to bank excess calories produced in times of plenty
against future uncertainty. Jesuit missionary Barthélemy Vimont (1898) recorded
that the Mi’kmaq of northern Acadia experienced a season of particular want during
the winter of 1644–1645. A poor catch of Salmo salar L. (Atlantic Salmon) in
Northeastern Naturalist
13
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
the autumn was exacerbated by a scarcity of game encountered during the early
winter hunt. As a result, the Mi’kmaq of Vimont’s acquaintance “were compelled
to eat their dogs, their [animal] skins, and their shoes, and often passed several days
without food” (Vimont 1898:25). The Indian captors of Mary Rowlandson, taken
during King Phillip’s War, resorted to eating Dogs when other provisions failed
during their flight towards Canada in February of 1675 (Rowlandson 1682). The
Innu, too, according to Le Jeune (1897b), turned to their Dogs for meat when they
failed to encounter game (Allen 1920).
Indeed, Father Le Jeune (1897b) suggested that a desire to provide against future
uncertainty was one important reason that Indians kept Dogs, comparing the raising
of Dogs by the Innu to the raising of Ovis aries L. (Sheep) in France. Sagard (1939),
likewise, compared Huron Dogs to Sheep. This comparison is suggestive. While
European elites might sometimes enjoy a meal of lamb or mutton, peasant farmers
kept Sheep primarily for wool (or milk). Sheep were not eaten except when an
animal reached the end of its productive lifespan or during times of famine (Epstein
1955, Johnston 2011). Le Jeune suggests that Indian Dogs paralleled French Sheep
in that they were chiefly raised not to be eaten; instead they served as sentries and
hunting partners. During times of scarcity, however, Dogs provided a reserve of
readily available meat.
In fact, Dog meat seems to have been a crucial component of northeastern
native diets. Archaeological evidence from a 16th- through 17th-century Neutral
village site near the northwestern shores of Lake Ontario, for example, shows that
Dogs were the second most consumed meat source for its inhabitants, following
only deer (Stewart and Finlayson 2000). Beyond serving as an emergency source
of meat for when famine threatened, dogs may, then, have functioned as a dietary
staple in some northeastern cultures. Dog meat also played important ceremonial
roles, and the ritual consumption of Dogs was common to nations throughout the
region. While Dog-feast ceremonies could occur at any time of the year, in some
cases ceremonies may have been strategically timed to provide protein during
otherwise lean winter months. For example, records for the 17th century make
clear reference to the antecedents of what by the late 18th century had evolved into
the Iroquois ceremony of the White Dog Sacrifice. This ceremony took place in
midwinter and may originally have involved the sacrifice of 10 Dogs, followed
by a feast at which their remains were boiled in a stew and then consumed (Blau
1964, Tooker 1965).
It is worth noting that while Dogs served a number of utilitarian roles in Indian
communities, including as a food source, it seems likely that affective ties also
linked human and canine—at least for some Indian masters in their relationships
with certain individual Dogs (Kercsmar 2016). An Innu origin tale celebrated the
loyalty of Dogs, even suggesting that Dogs had earned the enmity of the rest of the
animal world by choosing to hunt alongside humans (Schwartz 1995). Le Jeune
(1898b:13) remarked—disapprovingly—that the Hurons held their Dogs “as dear
as the children of the house” and allowed them “to share the beds, plates, and food
of their masters”. Huron women fed puppies as tenderly as they did infant children,
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
14
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
and Mi’kmaq mothers even allowed orphaned pups to suckle at their breasts until
the Dogs were able to subsist on soup (Denys 1908, Sagard 1939). A Huron hunter
whose beloved Dog (named Ouatit) had recently been killed by a Black Bear eulogized
his former companion to Father Le Jeune by declaring, “I dearly loved Ouatit;
I had resolved to keep him with me all his life”; the hunter went on to declare that
he would never have sacrificed Ouatit to the stewpot even if commanded to do so
in a spirit dream, a remarkable statement given the sacredness of such messages (Le
Jeune 1898a:14). Mi’kmaq hunters also seem to have had favorite dogs, although
these Dogs’ fates differed than that of Ouatit. According to Denys (1908:430), the
gift of a Dog served as a “mark of friendship”, and hunters offered “testimony to a
friend of the esteem in which they held him” by giving “him that Dog to eat which
they valued the most”. It is unclear whether effective hunting Dogs might, at least
occasionally, be spared such a fate, but this observation certainly suggests that in
Mi’kmaq society the line separating a valued hunting companion from a convivial
bowl of stew could be a thin one.
For all that they had to offer, Indian Dogs “cost their master very little”, as Gabriel
Sagard (1939:226) noted. Denys (1908:430) mentions puppies being “nursed”
by Mi’kmaq women, and observed mature Dogs sometimes being fed with “soup”;
although during the winter hunting season, he makes clear that the Dogs were given
“nothing but the offal of the beasts” which they helped their Indian partners to hunt
and catch. “If eight days pass without any animals being killed”, Denys (1908:430)
declared, “they are just so long without eating”. This almost certainly overstates
the hunger faced by indigenous Dogs. Rather, the Dogs living within Indian communities
did not depend on direct feedings for most of their sustenance, but instead
combined independent hunting with a diet that consisted of scavenging the excess
and waste produced by their human companions.
Sagard (1939:253–254) recorded that like Sus scrofa scrofa L. (Domestic Pig),
the Dogs in Huron villages ate “nothing but the refuse they find in the streets and
on the roads”, contributing, in Sagard’s opinion, to the pork-like flavor of their
meat (Anderson 2004). Indeed, Sagard’s comparison of indigenous Dogs to Pigs
seems even more appropriate than comparing these domestic canines to European
Sheep. Pigs, like Dogs, at first glance seem poor choices for domestication since
both species overlap to a considerable extent with humans in their diets. However,
this dietary overlap, combined with the ability of both domesticated species to
hunt independently, meant that Dogs, like Pigs, could maximize the exploitation
of food resources shared with humans by consuming scraps that might otherwise
go to waste. (White 2011). For example, Dogs were allowed to lick eating vessels
clean, leading Le Jeune (1897b) to complain that Innu Dogs, accustomed to feeding
off of leftovers, would often thrust their noses into his dish before he had a chance
to finish his meal (Sagard 1939). Le Jeune also recorded other organic refuse—the
leftover skins from a meal of smoked Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur) (American Eel)
and scraps of hide from making clothing—being fed to Dogs, as well as a highly
illustrative insult hurled at one member of the Innu band with which he travelled:
“Oh the glutton! ... He has no sense; he eats everything like a dog” (Le Jeune
1897b:173).
Northeastern Naturalist
15
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
Feeding bones and scraps from game to Dogs was common, contrary to the great
attention that historians have paid to the various taboos against the practice. One of
the most often quoted passages from Chrétien Le Clercq’s journal, for example, is
the missionary’s observation that Mi’kmaq never threw the bones of Beaver to their
Dogs “lest they lose their sense of smell for the rodent” (Martin 1978:35). In a similar
vein, an Innu hunter informed Le Jeune that the spirit of a dead Beaver would
know if a Dog were allowed to chew on its bones and in retaliation for this slight
“the other Beavers would be apprised of it and therefore they would make themselves
hard to capture” (Krech 1999:202). Similar taboos are mentioned frequently
in 17th- and 18th-century accounts and appear to have been nearly universal among
the cultures of the Northeast. However, these taboos were both species- and culturally
specific. Where particular taboos did not prevent it, Dogs were free to dine
upon bones tossed away by sated humans. A later Mi’kmaq oral tradition blames
their nation’s split from the linguistically related Maliseets upon a fight between 2
Dogs over a bone cast aside during a feast, suggesting that the cultural prohibition
against giving Beaver bones to Dogs did not apply to all species utilized for meat
(Prins 1996). Le Jeune shows that some prohibitions, depending on the animal
involved, applied only to certain parts of a carcass. He observed that the Innu did
“not throw to the dogs the bones of female Beavers and Porcupines—at least certain
specified bones … Yet they make a thousand exceptions to this rule, for it does
not matter if the vertebrae or rump of these animals be given to the Dogs” (Allen
1920:468). Teeth marks on bones found in the middens of 1 Iroquois site show that
Dogs were allowed to scavenge meat from the discarded remains of meals made up
of a full range of game animals—including Beaver and other Dogs (Stewart 1991).
If Le Jeune (1897a) and Father Isaac Jogues (1898), another Jesuit missionary, are
to be believed, both the Innu and the Iroquois even allowed their Dogs to feed on
the bodies of slain enemies.
Indigenous Dogs likely supplemented the calories they obtained scavenging
refuse with prey taken while hunting independently. Indigenous Dogs would have
been the most numerous non-human predator in 17th-century North America. The
Northeast (in this case narrowly defined as New England and the Canadian Maritimes)
likely contained no more than 14,000, and likely far fewer, wild Wolves
(Hampton 1997, Paquet and Carbyn 2003). Black Bears and Puma concolor L.
(Cougars), which live at far smaller population densities, would have been rarer
still. By contrast, indigenous Dogs may have numbered well over 100,000 if Denys’
estimates for the Mi’kmaq are to be applied to the region as a whole, with its human
population of ~140,000 (Bragdon 1996, Denys 1908, Schwartz 1995). If we assume
that Denys exaggerated, Father Pierre Biard’s (1898) implication that every adult
male hunter owned at least 1 Dog would suggest a lower bound estimate of around
30,000. Although estimating historical populations is difficult, it seems likely that
C. lupus familiaris numbered well into the tens-of-thousands in New England and
the Canadian Maritimes at the beginning of the 17th century.
As 1 of the 2 most numerous predator species (alongside humans) in the region,
indigenous Dogs would have had a critical impact on wildlife populations.
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
16
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
Research on the ecology of modern Dogs suggests that this would have included
deer in those areas where deer were plentiful (Bergman et al. 2009, Boitani et al.
1995, Lowry and McArthur 1978). Today, for example, Domestic Dogs are the most
widespread non-human predators of White-tailed Deer, a fact which may represent
a long-standing ecological relationship (Smith 1991).
Smaller game, however, likely made up the bulk of independently hunted prey.
Denys (1908:389) observed that in Acadia, “the entire country is furnished in all
its parts” with rabbits—presumably Lepus americanus (Erxleben) (Snowshoe
Hare)—“provided that one goes to places a little removed from the dwellings.” In
the immediate vicinity of villages, he recorded, “Dogs chase and even eat them”,
making such prey scarce. Dogs are also accomplished mousers (even if it is cats that
are more often celebrated in this regard), and indigenous Dogs would have helped
protect Indian food stores from destruction by North America’s native Peromyscus
maniculatus (Wagner) (Deer Mouse) and other rodents while also supplementing
their own diets (Bergman et al. 2009, Causey and Cude 1980, Vanak and Gompper
2010). This role would have been especially important in agricultural communities—
such as the Huron village in which Sagard (1939:227) encountered “mice
without number”—where grain storage provided an important food reserve and
ensured seed for the next season’s planting. Studies of modern feral and loose
Dogs in the United States suggest that these historical indigenous Dogs likely also
supplemented their winter diets by hunting Sciurus carolinensis (Gmelin) (Eastern
Gray Squirrel), Tamias striatus L. (Chipmunk), and, in more southerly portions of
the Northeast, Meleagris gallopavo L. (Wild Turkey), among other small prey species
(Bergman et al. 2009, Causey and Cude 1980, Ritchie et al. 2014).
It is impossible to know from a distance of 300 years later what proportion of
indigenous Dogs’ diets were composed of independently hunted game and what
proportion was provided to them by their human partners. Likewise, it is difficult to
say just how large an impact these Dogs had on local wildlife populations and the
larger ecosystem in general. However, that indigenous Dogs, along with the humans
with whom they lived, were the region’s most numerous and likely most productive
predators seems hard to ignore.
Conclusion
Indigenous Dogs are surprisingly absent from the existing environmental history
of North America. In most cases, scholarly focus on livestock rearing as a primarily
Old World activity has severely marginalized discussion of indigenous Dogs.
Alfred Crosby (1972, 1986) and Jared Diamond (1999), to take 2 notable examples,
highlight indigenous American Dogs in their influential and wide-ranging global
macrohistories as exceptions to the more general dearth of domesticates among
Native American societies. This fits well with each author’s thesis that keeping an
array of domesticated livestock provided Europeans with substantial material benefits
which, in turn, aided in their conquest of the Americas. Indigenous Dogs are
noted as exceptional, but otherwise relegated to unimportance (Crosby 1972, 1986;
Diamond 1999).
Northeastern Naturalist
17
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
The cultural biases of available sources have likewise distorted scholarly views
of indigenous Dogs. An understandable, if sometimes misleading, willingness
to take historical English observers at their word has allowed the ethnocentrism
inherent in these 17th- and 18th-century sources to influence modern scholars’ conceptions
of Indian Dogs as semi-wild and not true domesticates. William Cronon
(1983:24), in his seminal Changes in the Land, mentions indigenous Dogs only
once, ignoring their ecological roles and undermining their domesticated status by
dismissively declaring them “near kin of the wolf”. To support this characterization,
Cronon cites John Josselyn, a 17th-century English visitor to New England,
and similar assertions of the wildness of Indian Dogs were common among English
writers (indeed, Englishmen often mistook indigenous Dogs for wild Wolves).
Among environmental historians, Virginia DeJohn Anderson (2004) has presented
the most sustained inquiry into the relationship between Native Americans and
their Dogs. But in Creatures of Empire, she, too, repeats the cultural prejudices of
17th - and 18th -century English writers by presenting Indian Dogs as wild creatures
that were at best only partially domesticated. Anderson even goes so far as to suggest
that Eastern Algonquians—a linguistic family that includes the Mi’kmaq and
other Wabanaki peoples, Innu, and Algonquins, as well as most other of the native
peoples who lived along the Atlantic seaboard south to Virginia—did not make
use of Dogs in their hunting, an assertion contradicted by the historical evidence
presented above. More broadly, the cultural biases that led early English authors to
largely ignore the important role of indigenous Dogs in Indian societies, dismissing
these essential companions as little more than wild animals, is patently dispelled
by contemporary Francophone authors who were more likely to live within Indian
communities and who tended to take a greater ethnographical interest in Native
American life.
Close attention to the full range of available sources shows how humans and
Dogs, by working together, could most efficiently exploit the wildlife resources
available to them. Partnering in hunting provided advantages to both species—especially
during the winter months when Dogs enjoyed their greatest advantages
as hunters of large game. Dogs helped Indian hunters acquire calories to feed their
communities, at the same time that hunting alongside humans likely increased the
hunting success of Dogs, increasing the dietary security of both species. Indian hunters
and indigenous Dogs stood together as the apex predators of the early modern
Northeast; defining the ecology of the region and placing an important check on the
populations of game species (especially during those long northeastern winters).
Their partnership also maintained the 2 species as the region’s most numerous
large predators. As livestock, Dogs offered a ready-store of calories for Indian
consumption—especially important if winter snows failed to come, fell too wet, or
temperatures failed to drop and thus do not produce a stable snowpack. Humans,
for their part, provided Dogs with year-round shelter, a share of the hunt, and scraps
from meals prepared from agricultural crops or gathered wild plants. This symbiosis
between indigenous Dogs and human communities undergirded Indian strategies for
seasonal subsistence—especially in the winter—while also making Dogs the most
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
18
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
numerous and, from a genetic perspective, the most successful non-human predators
in the historic Northeast. Ultimately, this cross-species partnership helped ensure the
survival and prosperity of indigenous communities, human and canine alike.
Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to the Henry E. Huntington Library for the support of one of its research
fellowships and for making the research that much of this article is based on possible.
Literature Cited
Allen, G.M. 1920. Dogs of the American aborigines. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology at Harvard College 63:431–517.
Anderson, V.D. 2004. Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early
America. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 336 pp.
Benedict, J.B. 2005. Tundra game drives: An arctic–alpine comparison. Arctic, Antarctic,
and Alpine Research 37:425–434.
Bergman, D.L., S.W. Breck, and S.C. Bender. 2009. Paper 862: Dogs gone wild: Feral dog
damage in the United States, USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publication.
Available online at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/862. Accessed
2 February 2016.
Biard, P. 1898. Relation de la Novvelle France, de ses terres, natvrel du pais, & de ses habitans.
Pp. 21–284, In Thwaites, R.G. (Ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents.
Vol. 3. Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 291 pp.
Blau, H. 1965. The Iroquois white dog sacrifice: Its evolution and symbolism. Ethnohistory
11:129–140.
Boitani L., F. Francisc, P. Ciucci and G. Andreoli. 1995. Population biology and ecology
of feral dogs in central Italy. Pp. 217–244, In James Serpell (Ed.) The Domestic Dog:
Its Evolution, Behavior, and Interactions with People. University of Cambridge Press,
Cambridge, UK. 284 pp.
Bragdon, K.J. 1996. Native People of Southern New England, 1500–1650. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 328 pp.
Brink, J.W. 2005. Inukshuk: Caribou drive lanes on southern Victoria Island, Nunavut,
Canada. Arctic Anthropology 42:1–28.
Causey, M.K., and C.A. Cude. 1980. Feral Dog and White-tailed Deer interactions in Alabama.
The Journal of Wildlife Management 44(2):481–484.
Champlain, S. de 1880. Voyages of Samuel de Champlain. Otis, C.P. (Trans.) Vol. 1. The
Prince Society, Boston, MA. 340 pp.
Charlevoix, P.F.X. 1761. Journal of a Voyage of a Voyage to North America Undertaken
by Order of the French King. Anonymous (Trans.). Vol. 1. R. and J. Dodsley, London,
UK. 380 pp.
Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England.
Hill and Wang, New York, NY. 242 pp.
Crosby, A.W. 1972. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of
1492. Greenwood Publishing Company, Westport, CT. 268 pp.
Crosby, A.W. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–
1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 340 pp.
Denys, N. 1908. The Description and Natural History of the Coasts of North America
(Acadia). W.F. Ganong (Ed. and Trans.). The Champlain Society, Toronto, ON, Canada.
625 pp.
Northeastern Naturalist
19
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
Diamond, J. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton
and Company, New York, NY. 480 pp.
Dièreville, D. 1933. Relation of the Voyage to Port Royal in Acadia or New France. J.C.
Webster (Ed.) A.K.L. Webster (Trans.). The Champlain Society, Toronto, ON, Canada.
329 pp.
Epstein, H. 1955. Domestication features in animals as functions of human society. Agricultural
History 29(4):137–146.
Godwin, C., J. Schaefer, B.R. Patterson, and B.A. Pond. 2013. Contribution of dogs to
White-tailed Deer hunting success. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77:290–296.
Hampton, B. 1997. The Great American Wolf. Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY.
320 pp.
Hey, D.L., and N.S. Philippi. 1995. Flood reduction through wetland restoration: The upper
Mississippi River basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology 3:4–17.
Hey, D.L., and N.S. Philippi. 1999. A Case for Wetland Restoration. Wiley, New York, NY.
223 pp.
Hubbard, W. 1677. A Narrative of the Troubles with the Indians of New England From the
First Planting Thereof to the Present Time. John Foster, Boston, MA. 256 pp.
Innis, H.A. 1956. The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON, Canada. 496 pp.
Jochim, M.A. 1981. Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in Cultural Context. Academic
Press, New York, NY. 233 pp.
Jogues, I. 1898. Notice sur René Goupil. Pp. 116–135, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit
Relations and Allied Documents… Vol. 28. Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 319 pp.
Johnston, R.A. 2011. All Things Medieval: An Encyclopedia of the Medieval World. Vol.
1. Greenwood, Santa Barbara, CA. 790 pp.
Johnston, C.A., and R.J. Naiman. 1990. Aquatic patch creation in relation to Beaver population
trends. Ecology 71:1617–1621.
Josselyn, J. 1674. An Account of Two Voyages to New England. Giles Widdows, London,
England. 211 pp.
Kercsmar, J.A. 2016. Wolves at heart: How dog evolution shaped whites’ perceptions of
Indians in North America. Envrionmental History 21:516–540.
Krech III, S. 1999. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. W.W. Norton and Company,
New York, NY. 320 pp.
Le Clercq, C. 1910. New Relation of Gaspesia: With the Customs and Religion of the
Gaspesian Indians. W.F. Ganong (Ed. and Trans). The Champlain Society, Toronto, ON,
Canada. 452 pp.
Le Jeune, P. 1897a. Brieve relation dv voyage de la Novvelle France, fait au mois d'Auril
dernier. Pp. 5–76, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents.
Vol. 5. Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 298 pp.
Le Jeune, P. 1897b. Relation de ce qui s’est passé en la Nouvvelle France, en l’année 1634.
Pp. 5–235, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. Vol. 7.
Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 312 pp.
Le Jeune, P. 1898a. Relation de ce qui s’est passé en la Novvelle France, en l'année 1638.
Pp. 113–280, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. Vol.
14. Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 284 pp.
Le Jeune, P. 1898b. Relation de ce qui. s’est passé en la Novvelle France, en l’année 1639.
Pp. 7–217, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents Vol. 17.
Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 243 pp.
Northeastern Naturalist
S.E. Roberts
2017
20
Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
Lescarbot, M. 1896. Relation dernière de ce qui s’est pass’e au Voyage du Sieur de Potrincourt.
Pp. 119–192, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents.
Vol. 2. Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 338pp.
Lewis, D.R. 1994. Neither Wolf nor Dog: American Indians, Environment, and Agrarian
Change. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 256 pp.
Liebenberg, L. 2006. Persistence hunting by modern hunter-gatherers. Current Anthropology
47:1017–1025.
Lowry, D.A., and K.L. McArthur. 1978. Domestic Dogs as predators on deer. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 6:38–39.
McCabe, R.E. 1982. Elk and Indians: Historical values and perspectives. Pp. 87–93, In
J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill (Eds.). Elk of North America: Ecology and Management.
Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 720 pp.
MacLeod, D.P. 2012. The Canadian Iroquois and the Seven Years’ War. Canadian War Museum,
Toronto, ON, Canada. 248 pp.
Martin, C. 1978. Keepers of the Game: Indian–Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade.
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 240 pp.
Mech, L.D., and R.O. Peterson. 2003. Wolf–prey relations. Pp.131–157, In L.D. Mech and
L. Boitani (Eds.). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL. 465 pp.
Medicine Crow, J. 1978. Notes on Crow Indian buffalo jump traditions. Plains Anthropologist
23:249–253.
Minahan, J.B. 2013. Ethnic Groups of the Americas: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, Santa
Barbara, CA. 411pp.
Paquet, P.C., and L.N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray Wolf (Canis lupus and allies). Pp. 482–510, In
G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman (Eds.). Wild Mammals of North
America: Biology, Management, and Conservation. The Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, MD. 1232 pp.
Pastore, C. 2014. Between Land and Sea: The Atlantic Coast and the Transformation of
New England. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 312 pp.
Prins, H.E.L. 1996. The Mi’kmaq: Resistance, Accommodation, and Cultural Survival.
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX. 250 pp.
Ritchie, E.G. , C.R. Dickman, M. Letnic and A.T. Vanak. 2014. Dogs as predators and trophic
regulators. Pp. 55–68, In M.E. Grompper (Ed.). Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife
Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 336 pp.
Rosier, J. 1905. A true relation of the most prosperous voyage made this present yeere 1605.
Pp. 99–152, In G.P. Winship (Ed.). Sailors Narratives of Voyages Along the New England
Coast, 1524–1624. Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., Boston, MA. 2 92 pp.
Rowlandson, M. 1682. The Soveraignty and Goodness of God. Samuel Green, Cambridge,
MA. 46 pp.
Russell, H.S. 1980. Indian New England Before the Mayflower. University Press of New
England, Hanover, NH. 296 pp.
Ruusila, V., and M. Pesonen. 2004. Interspecific cooperation in human (Homo sapiens)
hunting: The benefits of a barking dog (Canis familaris). Annales Zoologici Fennici
41:545–549.
Sagard, G. 1939. Sagard’s Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons. Pp. 1–272, In G.M.
Wrong (Ed.). H.H. Langton (Trans.). The Publications of the Champlain Society Vol. 25.
The Champlain Society, Toronto, ON, Canada. 488 pp.
Schwartz, A.D. 1995. Colonial New England agriculture: Old visions, new directions. Agricultural
History 69:454–481.
Northeastern Naturalist
21
S.E. Roberts
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 7
Shipman, P. 2015. The Invaders: How Humans and their Dogs Drove Neanderthals to Extinction.
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 2 88 pp.
Smith, W.P. 1991. Odocoileus virginianus. Mammalian Species 388:1–13.
Steckley, J. 2007. Words of the Hurons. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, ON,
Canada. 282 pp.
Stewart, F.L. 1991. Floating for fauna: Some methodological considerations using the Keffer
Site (AkGv-14) midden 57 faunal sample. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal
Canadien d’Archéologie 15:97–115.
Stewart, F.L., and W.D. Finlayson. 2000. Subsistence at the Irving-Johnston Village and
the question of deer tending by the Neutrals. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal
Canadien d'Archéologie 24:17–40.
Sundstrom, L. 2000. Cheyenne pronghorn procurement and ceremony. Plains Anthropologist
45:119–132.
Tooker, E. 1965. The Iroquois white dog sacrifice in the latter part of the eighteenth century.
Ethnohistory 12:129–140.
Trigger, B.G. 1969. The Huron: Farmers of the North. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New
York, NY. 164 pp.
Vanak, A.T., and M.E. Gompper. 2010. Interference competition at the landscape level:
The effect of free-ranging Dogs on a native mesocarnivore. Journal of Applied Ecology
47:1225–1232.
Vimont, B. 1898. Relation de ce qui s’est passé en la Novvelle France, és années 1644 and
1645. [chap. xii. to close of document.]. Pp. 21–103, In R.G. Thwaites (Ed.). The Jesuit
Relations and Allied Documents. Vol. 28. Burrows Brothers, Oxford, UK. 320 pp.
Warrick, G. 2008. A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 500–1650. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 312 pp.
Whitaker, J.O., and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Mammals of the Eastern United States. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY. 608 pp.
White, S. 2011. From globalized pig breeds to capitalist pigs: A study in animal cultures and
evolutionary history. Environmental History 16:94–120.
Wickman, T. 2015. “Winters embittered with hardships”: Severe cold, Wabanaki power, and
English adjustments, 1690–1710. William and Mary Quarterly 72:57–98.
Wiley, J. and C. Hulsey. 2010. Living on the edge: How deer survive winter. Maine Department
of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Available online at https://www1.maine.gov/ifw/
hunting_trapping/pdfs/deer_yards.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2016.
Williams, S. 1889. What Befell Stephen Williams in His Captivity. G. Sheldon (Ed.).
Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association, Deerfield, MA. 35 pp.
Wood, W. 1634. New Englands Prospect. Thomas Cotes for John Bellamie, London, England.
103 pp.