>Hunted with bows, arrows, spears. And on horses.
>Paleo humans didn't ride horses.
>No way to get calories to support a population by waiting on foot that a
>buffalo herd may pass along once a year.

Bad example, Amadeus. The buffalo was hunted extensively prior to the
introduction of horses (and rifles). It is true white fur traders decimated
the buffalo herds using horses (and rifles), but that does not mean they
are a requirement to succesfully hunt them.

Most of the 'hunting' of buffalo was done by herding the animals into small
canyons or over cliffs. They were herded by the use of fire, noise, rocks
thrown at them, or whatever else was available that could startle the
animals into a stampede. Once a stampede was started, the hunters could
basically sit back and relax while the animals essentially comitted
suicide. If they were stampeded toward cliffs, the animals simply fell to
their deaths. If they were stampeded into canyons, the animals severly
injured each other and died or were 'finished off' using arrows, spears,
lances, clubs, rocks, etc. I've read estimates of up to 50 animals killed
during a given hunting 'expedition'. Enough meat for months of use by a
hunting group. The introduction of the horse likely changed the *frequency*
of buffalo hunts, but not their success rate.

Hunting is *not* rocket science. If the animals are available, you can be
certain humans will find a way to kill and eat them. The problem is *not*
the 'diffuculty' of hunting (as you seem to keep asserting), but rather the
possibility of a scarcity of animals at certain times during the year.