Humans, Animals and the Spectrum of Otherness

By viewing animals as “others” we have a natural curiosity towards them and we feel as though we have an invitation to inquisitively interrogate their every move. Unlike our curiosity of humans which revolves around our unique differences, our curiosity in animals lies in the similarities. We are able to see similarities in their physical structure, in their actions, and we place labels on their expressions so that they appear to have similar emotions to us. Armed with these notions of otherness, we then proceed to develop a closeness to animals or we keep ourselves at a distance. And some of us end up somewhere in between.

The degree of otherness we accept influences the way we relate to animals and how we include them in our lives. As children we are presented with materials to help us learn, almost all of which anthropomorphize animals into some sort of human form. Of anthropomorphism, Esther Woolfson, author of Corvus: A Life with Birds, states, “it is the desire to mould ideas and images of animals in ways which allow humans to control or understand only within the narrow framework of what we ourselves may be..." (151) By reading books to our children about a bear family that lives in a tree house, we are able to keep our children at a safe distance from wildlife. We believe our children are not ready to learn the harsh reality of the natural world; yet at the same time, they are intrigued by animals. By reading our children these stories, they are able to learn about human relationships and conflict in the form of something intriguing to them, a fuzzy and furry cartoon bear family.

Paul Shepard states in his book, Thinking Animals, “The distinction between animals as figurative people and as surrogate people may seem unnecessarily fine because we are not used to making it. But the difference is fundamental and it influences the way we see the animal world all our lives and therefore the way we see ourselves.” (Shepard, 250) Since childhood we have become so accustomed to reading picture books about animals living in houses, wearing clothes, and eating the same foods we eat. When we are told these same stories over and over again in different forms, they are bound to take place in our memory and influence our view of animals. We might become oblivious to the fact that many bears are solitary creatures and don’t coexist their entire lives with a mate and cubs. In contrast, we might learn one single attribute of another animal and believe that this attribute defines this animal. We could go on fearing and despising black birds our entire life because we have heard numerous folktales of conniving, death predicting ravens.

An example of a person who desired a closeness to animals, based on their otherness is Timothy Treadwell. He believed that wildlife, in particular grizzly bears, have been misunderstood. The degree of otherness that Treadwell speaks of is the thought that grizzly bears are viewed as vicious, killing animals and little else. While Treadwell was aware that grizzly bears are a part of wildlife and that their home is in a different place than ours, he so eagerly desired a closeness with them, that he, invited himself into their home. He craved a friendship that wasn’t available to him due to the otherness of these animals. The grizzly bears whom Treadwell camped next to did not have a need for human friendship, yet Treadwell needed them. He needed to see them beyond their otherness. In one scene Treadwell is shown petting and playing with the fox whom he named, Timmy. He pleads to the audience, “please stop shooting these animals for their fur.” He insists that if hunters could truly see how cute and sweet these animals were, they would not kill them. I wholeheartedly agree, yet this scene shows that Timothy was focused on certain attributes about these animals and not the intricacies of their lives, which are much more complicated than he showed his audience. He was not placing value on the other parts of animals lives, those that make them others, different from ourselves. The audience that Treadwell hoped for were the ones who thought Timothy was crazy and got what he deserved, to be killed by the animal that he loved the most. It is disheartening that someone with such obvious love for these animals did not get his message across positively. The way in which Treadwell viewed animals as others created a desire in him to be their friends. In the end, this view distracted him from what was most important to him, the safety and well-being of the bears.

Similar to Treadwell’s initial desire to present people with a way to coexist with wildlife is the philosophy of Vince Shute and his Wildlife Sanctuary. Shute lived in the woods for a number of years as a logger and frequently encountered black bears. He and his fellow loggers would shoot and kill every black bear they saw in order to avoid conflict and the possibility of an attack. After observing these animals more frequently, Shute felt that they were not a threat and that rather than killing them, he needed to teach people how to coexist with them. Shute started his Wildlife Sanctuary in 1993 and it still exists as a safe haven for black bears and other wildlife today. In the view that Shute held, he desired to put the otherness of the black bears on display for the public to see. He wanted onlookers to see the bears in their natural habitat so they could understand the bear life and understand that they could coexist with the bears. By viewing these bears as others, Shute created, at the same time, a closeness and a distance between humans and bears. He made a space for the bears where they would not be threatened by humans and where humans could view them without being fearful. He also created a positive distance with these animals by not disclosing the fact that when the bears leave the lines of the sanctuary they may present their natural fear of humans and by teaching us of the ways in which we can coexist with bears without killing them, but by letting them be bears.

For some, their view of animals as others creates an ambivalence towards the capacity in which animals are in their lives. Many scientists, biologists and farmers pursue their line of work because they are curious, interested in, or feel they have a love of non-human animals. Scientists and biologists may desire to perform research that will one day help their subjects. Farmers feel they are showing their love for animals by feeding them, helping to raise their young, and ensuring their survival, even if for a limited time. When a person’s line of work represents animals as subjects or financial gain, their view of them as others stretches; it becomes more and more difficult to see them as the animals that they once loved and felt a closeness to. In Barry Lopez’s chapter, Tornarssuk, in his book, Arctic Dreams, one research scientist states of polar bear research, “I felt I had invaded her privacy. For the remainder of the day I could not rid myself of this image of vulnerability." (Lopez, 118) In order to obtain research results, this scientist had witnessed the bears being drugged, tagged, darted, made vulnerable, and even killed. His view of these animals had shifted into an otherness that no longer correlated with his beliefs.

Another example of a scientist’s ambivalence took place at the presence of forty-one beached whales on the Oregon Coast. One scientist as the scene to conduct research stated, "It hurt me more than watching human beings die. I couldn't cope with the pain, the futility...I just turned into myself. It brought out the scientist in me." (Lopez, 139) It seems as if this woman took her notion of these whales as others and omitted from her mind any similarities they might have to us and any compassion for the forty-one deaths taking place. She was able to take this idea of others and make it equivalent to the scientific idea of a subject. Viewing the whales close to the end of the spectrum of otherness, as subjects, helped her to better perform the task at hand – getting samples of these curious other creatures.

Through my observation of our treatment of certain animals, it is clear that many of us believe that animals are here on this earth for us alone, for our pleasure and enjoyment. As the human race, we undoubtedly feel superior and therefore are able to make a distinction between animals as others and ourselves as superior. By viewing animals at this end of the otherness spectrum we are able to find similarities and patterns among human and non-human animals, but the differences are clear enough that we feel it is our right to control their lives. With this point of view, animals lives are not as significant as our own, they are here for us to kill, to eat, and to enjoy aesthetically. Some farmers in agro-business truly feel that they love their farm animals. They are able to step back and place symbolic value on these animals, in the form of dollar signs and hamburgers, these symbols, for a time, make the farmers love the animals even more. The animals provide a living for these farmers, they make their house payments, car payments, and put food on the table. At the showing of the documentary, Peaceable Kingdom, in Seattle, Howard Lyman, a former cattle rancher, spoke of how this view of animals eventually caught up to him. As he turned his animals into business his view of them as others began to stretch further and further down the spectrum. After a revelation of sorts, he now views them as others, but in a positive and balanced way. They are different, they speak another language, but they are also similar in that they have emotions, habits, and patterns of behavior, just like us. This new view has impacted Lyman’s life with animals, he no longer see them as symbols, he is able to relate to these animals in an entirely non-selfish way. The balance of what he provides the animals – nourishment, love, kindness, and respect, and what the animals provide him – non-judgmental love and happiness, is equal.

Some of us are appreciative of animals on an aesthetic level, in some ways, taking their beauty for granted. We take a morning walk and appreciate seeing a variety of birds in our neighborhood treetops. We take a closer look at their beautiful markings and listen to their intriguing calls. We label their actions how we see fit, they must be calling for a mate or searching for worms. This is what birds do, right? Without any disrespect intended, we have come accustomed to this way of thinking and being. We feel that we know these animals and have the superiority needed to judge their behavior and guess what it portrays. We create wildlife refuges “for them” for our enjoyment, we pay money to see them in their “natural state” and we write postcards home about the beautiful wildlife we saw on vacation. Borrowing from Paul Shepard’s philosophy of thought, we need animals. They are a part of our thought process and of our healthy mental state. We place animals in a space that is comfortable to us, mentally, physically, and emotionally. We feel that we are doing them a favor, even showing compassion and respect by including them in our human world and by defining their emotions as we know our own. They allow us to interpret their intricate lives in this way and often we keep their place on the otherness spectrum at a distance from a true understanding of their behavior. We want animals in our lives, but we do not want to allow them to live their own intricate lives, free from our judgment.

As this spectrum of otherness presents itself in our lives, some of us are able to maintain positive interactions with animals while still being reminded of their otherness. It is an admirable way of life to avoid placing judgment on animals behavior and perceived emotions and create a parallel for your curiosity and their being. There is a balance that exists where one can connect with animals without being intrusive. This balance can exist when humans let go of the symbols they have placed on animals since their childhood, when they are content with the fact that there may never be an explanation for an animal’s behavior. An appreciation of animals, as others, and of their behavior, patterns, movements and relationships is gained through long-term, open-ended observation. It is not gained by going to the zoo, by reading poetry influenced by symbolism, by hunting them for sport, or by using them for selfish gain, whether it be financial or psychological.

In Bernd Heinrich’s, Ravens in Winter, so much appreciation of wildlife, especially of the corvid family of birds, is gained through the journals of a man determined to find an answer to his questions about ravens. Heinrich spent many winters in the snowy, cold wilderness observing ravens. He explained how observing wildlife is a difficult task, if you look down for just a moment you will miss something. Heinrich was as dedicated as an observer of wildlife could be, getting up before dawn, sleeping in a -10 F cabin, and spending much time in solitude. Of his observations he states, “Undoubtedly, getting the trappings of science would make the work seem more “scientific,” but I know it would make me a slave to the equipment; it would also make me lose sight of whole dimensions of behavior that the equipment is not designed to see.” (Heinrich, 69) Heinrich observed for many days over at least a handful of years, he learned to let go of the notion of a desired outcome. He found patterns of behavior, but not what he expected. Even at the end of his book, he does not have a clear conclusion. “It is an elegant, simple, and beautiful system. But it is clothed by intricate detail and subtlety. As far as I know, no other animals shows a similar system. However, sometimes when I am fanciful and envision ravens studying humans, I can’t help but wonder what they would make of some of our customs, and how they might arrive at scientific conclusions about them.” (Heinrich, 313) So often in science there is a need for a conclusion and for a theory to be proven. In order to find a balance between humans and animals, we need to realize that we can find patterns in animal behavior, but there is not one conclusive reason as to why an animal does something. We will never know. Being able to accept this mystery is what ultimately yields a greater appreciation of animals; it is what allows us to respectfully coexist with them.

I have found this ideal balance and admirable relationship with animals in Esther Woolfson’s writings of her accounts of accidentally becoming a bird keeper. She was given a pair of doves by a friend and then became the neighborhood go to for injured birds that had fallen out of their nests. Woolfson took on this task with nonchalance, knowing that she would not know exactly what do and that she may not get any appreciation or acknowledgement from all the time, effort, and money she would put into these birds. She was able to not view the birds impersonally, through her graceful writings it is clear that she viewed the birds as other living beings sharing her home; I can imagine she would show the same love, respect, and gratitude to another human being. Woolfson spend so much time with her birds, not purposefully observing, rather just noting behavior as you would by spending time with a close friend. You begin to learn their unique habits, their quirks, their tone and inflection in certain situations. You are able to go beyond guessing as to why they do what they do because you know them.

In Woolfson’s view of birds as others she recognizes their differences and at the same time sees similarities. She understands that an individual bird’s behavior cannot be categorized as “bird behavior.” Much like Heinrich, she understands that birds are unique individuals, she observed certain birds having days in which they seemed to desire solitude and days in which those same birds were incredibly social, making her unable to label a certain species as social or less social. In Bernd Heinrich’s observations of ravens, he states, “But how would you demonstrate deliberate recruitment short of asking the bird directly in Ravenese: “What do you have in mind when your behavior causes others to share the food? Is this what you wanted?” But I’m not asking these questions. I’m trying to explain behavior without volition.” (Heinrich, 83) Heinrich and Woolfson both understand that birds speak another language that we, if unable to ask them in our own language, may not ever understand. And we should be entirely content with that.

Similar to my grandmother’s quiet appreciation of the eagles, Woolfson states, "I thought about what we'd all miss if we didn't have them: our pleasure in the way they looked, their presence in the garden as they lined up to bathe, wandered across the grass on damp mornings, pottered by the pond, the fanatic, obvious delight they took in flight, their luminous, stellar beauty. Their sounds had become part of our lives, their voices echoing down the sound-chambers of the chimneys, the way the movement of their wings outside altered the colours in the rooms." (Woolfson, 33) Living with these birds as others, on the level of being non-intrusive and observing their behavior as we would our friends, non-judgmentally, has developed a deep appreciation of wildlife in Woolfson, Heinrich, and my grandmother. All three were long-term observers and lovers of nature and wildlife. Sharing their stories is a reminder of how much can be gained through this view of animals as others.
 
Sources Cited
The Grizzly Man. Dir. Werner Herzog. Lions Gate Films, 2005. Film.
Heinrich, Bernd. Ravens in Winter. New York: Random House, Inc., 1991. Print.
“History of the Vince Shute Wildlife Sanctuary.”
http://www.americanbear.org/sanctuary/history.html.
Lopez, Barry. Arctic Dreams. New York: Bantam Publising, 1987. Print.
Lopez, Barry. Crossing Open Ground. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.
Peaceable Kingdom. Dir. Jenny Stein. Tribe of Heart Films, 2009. Film.
Shepard, Paul. Thinking Animals. Washington, D.C.: Island Press Publishing,
1997. Print.
Woolfson, Esther. Corvus: A Life with Birds. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint LLC.
2009. Print.

Curious Naturalists

In response to Niko Tinbergen's, Curious Naturalists, it seems very obvious that he had an appreciation of the wildlife that he was working with. Although throughout the reading I continued to wonder why his experiments were necessary. He played many games and conducted experiments on various wildlife, but I am not quite sure what the gain was. Yes, he did get his work published, but it seems that much of his findings were unable to progress. Aside from curiosity, why do we need to know whether or not a bird will eat a caterpillar that appears to be flat as opposed to one that is three dimensional, by way of showing its shadows? His studies were very interesting and I appreciated learning about the species they applied to, but I would have equally, if not more greatly, appreciated a naturalist's observations without performing experiements.

Some of the work performed by Tinbergen involved different species of birds and taking a look at their senses. In contrast to the book I read previously, Corvus: A Life with Birds, I felt that Woolfson's apprectiation and knowledge of birds was so much greater because she had spent years with these animals. She observed them, yes, out of curiosity, but did not feel the need to perform experiments to understand their behavior. She observed their habits on a daily basis as if they were loved ones, because they were. She did not judge their behavior, she accepted it as it was, and she was not looking for a specific outcome.

One of Tinbergen's experiments was to judge the role of shadows in a jays relationship with his food, would the jay eat a caterpillar turned upside down as opposed to right side up? Tinbergen used caterpillars which he injected with cyanide and placed them in different positions to create shadows and to create situations with few or no shadows. In a similar experiment, he used moths painted different colors and twigs which resembled caterpillars. I do not feel the need to post the results to these tests because they were inconclusive and in my opinion, unecessary.

I feel that treating these birds as subjects creates a certain type of relationship. I do not believe that Tinbergen would have been capable of having the same kind of relationship or even appreciation of wildlife as Woolfson had in her life with birds. Even though Tinbergen's studies took time and effort, it seems like the easy way out. The back cover of Curious Naturalists includes a quote from Tinbergen, "This book describes the activities and some of the discoveries of a small number of naturalists who have joined me, at one time or another, in the pursuit of our common hobby: the study of behavior of animals in their natural environment." In the book, Tinbergen describes the testing locations, man-made boxes, cages or even in a lab setting. And really, how often will a jay find, in his "natural environment" a metal cage and an array of cyanide injected caterpillar treats? These are not the same results that would be attained in a creature's natural environment.

It would be interesting to see, in contrast, what Tinbergen would have found by only observing wildlife. By still looking for the same outcome, but by observation alone. This reminds me of my readings of the Dunne-za and their opinion of short term observers of wildlife. It was difficult for them to have respect and trust the results of people who had only been observing animals for a short time. Tinbergen was not only observing his subjects for a short time, but he also was creating tests for them that were far from what would take place in their natural environment.

At the end of the chapter, Studies of Camouflage, Tinbergen comments on his growing apprection of wildlife as he performs these experiments. By reading this book I do have more appreciation of the species that he mentions. He describes their aesthetic beauty, their colors and markings in great detail. But most of my appreciation and compassion for these animals is due to the fact that they had to put up with these tests, that they had no choice. The tests were not necessarily cruel, but they were unecessary and did not benefit the animals who had to undergo them. They were performed for the sole benefit of the creators, to fulfill their curiosity.

Tinbergen states, "We often felt that there is not less, and perhaps, even more, beauty in the result of analysis than there is to be found in mere contemplation." (Tinbergen, 154) I question what Tinbergen means when he uses the word contemplation. I feel that this word has inclination towards a quickness in delivery and outcome, whereas observation takes time. When you are observing something you have the understanding that it will not be quick and will possibly be without a deadline.

Tinbergen does not relate to wildlife in the same way as Woolfson or the Dunne-za. It seems as though he sees wildlife as if it were on this earth for humans to enjoy, to ponder, to look at, and to be given a sense of awe. For these reasons, Tinbergen appreciates wildlife, but he does not show compassion or respect for it. "I believe that I myself am not at all insensitive to an animal's beauty, but I must stress that my aesthetic sense has been receiving even more satisfaction since I studied the function and significance of this beauty." (Tinbergen, 154) In this statement, Tinbergen shows that most of his appreciation of animals stems from their aesthetic beauty and by their functions which he labels as such, those that do not tell us anything significant about his subjects.

Children and Creature Symbols

“[Animals] are the means to a self-identity and self-consciousness as our most human possession, for they enable us to objectify qualities and traits. By presenting us with related-otherness – that diversity of non-self with which we have various things in common – they further, throughout our lives, a refining and maturing knowledge of personal and human being.” (Shepard, 249)

Through the reading of Paul Shepard and by looking back on my own childhood and those childhoods which are becoming around me, it has become clear that who we are, the words we say, the way we feel, and the way we identify ourselves is defined by what we have learned of animals. Without animals we would not have learned the basics of being human: speech and vocabulary, conflict resolution, the importance of family, and how to interact with others. These traits would have been learned, but in an entirely different way. I cannot imagine a child’s world without the use of animals as learning tools. The numerous books, movies, and pieces of art that portray animals as having human relationships taught us, as children, about respect, love, difference, and the significance of friendships and family. Animals are used in songs and games to teach us shapes, numbers, and the alphabet. As we grow older, animals are used in literature to teach us about spirituality and the natural world.

We place animals in a space that is comfortable to us, mentally, physically, and emotionally. We feel that we are doing them a favor, even showing compassion and respect by including them in our human world and by defining their emotions as we know our own. “The distinction between animals as figurative people and as surrogate people may seem unnecessarily fine because we are not used to making it. But the difference is fundamental and it influences the way we see the animal world all our lives and therefore the way we see ourselves.” (Shepard, 250) We relate to animals by subconsciously applying human emotions to the actions that they show us. We perceive them as being sad, happy, lonely, or silly. We feel that we understand them. We forget where they came from and where they are now. We forget that at one time, they did not assimilate to the sounds of airplanes above their sky, to the sounds of automobile engines in their grasslands, and to being on display for us to observe and interrogate. Whether we feel we are treating them with respect and kindness or not, the fact will always exist that we have used them for our benefit, we have treated them as “others” in a positive, but more often, negative way. We take for granted their existence, influence, and benefit. All the while, they have continued to accept our forced relationships with them, allowing us to be the creators of their future.

Children learn about life, love, and relationships through fictional stories about animals. Paul Shepard believes that we place these stories about human interaction in animal form because it is a way for us to use animals as examples which we can learn from. We can relate to their being like us, in somewhat human form, yet they “manifest that invisible otherness.” (Shepard, 31) This otherness keeps our relationship with them safe. We do not have to tell our children about the harsh world of nature or our harsh treatment of that world. Instead, we can use these images of creatures in cartoon form to benefit us and our children. We use these images as tools for teaching our children about behavior and relationships. Perhaps we feel that it is not appropriate to portray animals in this way to our children, but, hey, they are teaching them important lessons. Children don’t need to know that brown bears are actually quite solitary animals when the Berenstain Bears are teaching them about family life and conflict resolution, right?

I recently saw a children’s cartoon that involved an elephant, a monkey, and a koala. The elephant was doing what elephants do best, building a rocket-ship, and the silly monkey and koala, while elephant wasn’t looking, broke his most prized project. Being the smart elephant that he is, he knew that monkey and koala were the culprits. When he learned of this, he cried and cried and cried. Monkey and koala felt so bad that they gave in, apologized and helped elephant fix his rocket-ship. In the end, everyone agreed that apologizing to elephant was the best outcome and they were even better friends now. By using animals in place of humans in this story, children were immediately more interested in the story. It is entertaining to see an elephant riding a rocket-ship and a monkey and koala trying to decide the best apology to deliver. Aside from their entertainment value alone, studies have shown that young children find it easier to relate to animals than to other humans. The children know that this is not typical animal behavior, but they also do not know what true animal behavior is. By showing children that elephants, bears and monkeys live in houses in the city, it will be difficult to teach them where animals really live, where they came from, and how our actions impact their future.

Most books, games, television programs, movies, and learning tools we use to teach our children involve the humanizing of animals. There begins to be a fine line of what is respectful and what is disrespectful when including animals in our everyday lives. Children are able to name every animal, tell of some generic behavior that they possess, and feel a closeness with animals as their images and fictional stories surround their everyday lives. But keeping animals at the proximity of cartoon images in storybooks and behind cages in zoos is not teaching them about animal differences. They are only learning how to see animals as dual physicality human-animals. Children learn that in these fictional human emotions and expressions, animals have only one trait. “Unlike people, who seem to be bear-like one minute and cow-like the next, each kind of creature has some one notable characteristic from among these fugitive components and experiences of which we were previously unconscious.” (Shepard, 117) By portraying animals in this way, it will be difficult for children to set aside these solo characteristics and to someday truly understand that animals lead intricate, emotional lives of their own. And they don’t live in tree-houses near the city.

Animals are such a profound part of our lives, more often than not, only in a fictional sense. The benefits our children have received from learning tools that use animals as the teachers is tremendous. But does the negative impact outweigh the benefits? Children are not learning enough about animal behavior by playing games and reading books about cartoon animals. As Shepard has explained in Thinking Animals, there seems to always be another agenda in our teaching children. We include animals in their learning to teach them about human relationships, which we perhaps find more important that creating human-animal relationships, based on true knowledge and not single characteristics. It is easier to continue to use animals as we have been, because children are already intrigued by them.

The other day while at my nanny job, I went to pick up a child from her friend’s house. As I entered the house, the mother, excitedly asked, “Do you want to see our chicks?” And in the same breath, “I’m sorry about the horrible smell, I’ve got a chicken in the oven and I must have set the temperature too high. I’m going to open some windows and air this place out.” The family had just purchased chicks to raise for egg-laying. And they were cooking a chicken for dinner. And complaining about its horrible smell. It’s quite possible that I am too affected by this irony, but I wonder what this is teaching children. We will take care of these cute chicks and help them to grow so they can give us eggs. While they are growing we will eat their likeness for dinner, in another form, the flesh concealed in saran-wrap form. And tonight we’ll read our favorite silly story, Chicken Little. This animal is near and somewhat dear to the child, but what is missing from the child’s understanding of this animal? Do these combined actions create respect and understanding of other species with whom we share this planet?

Killing Coyote

I just watched the documentary, Killing Coyote. The most important part of the film was when a rancher was discussing his view of the coyote and said, "they're really crafty little critters, they have a sixth sense." This man is someone who is pro-killing coyotes as a way to manage their population. I wasn't expecting to see an example of symbolism in this film, but there it is. Based on the symbolic meaning that coyotes hold, this man has a hatred and fear of the coyote.

In books, literature, and Native American folklore, the coyote is portrayed as sly, tricky, and cunning. This label that has been placed on coyotes has influenced this man and many others. I am currently reading Paul Shepard's Thinking Animals, and it is made clear that through our learning about animals as children, we understand that animals have only one characteristic. What do children do when they act like a bear? Get on all fours and growl. This is what bears do. We are taught that this is all that bears do. What do children do when they want to act like a coyote? They get on all fours and move about slyly and cunningly. This is what we are taught that coyotes do. It is difficult to let go of these notions when they are taught to us from an early age and become set in our minds.

Some ranchers in the film are upset that coyotes invade their livestock, and sometimes kill sheep. When this happens, the ranchers feel they can prove their belief that coyotes are sly and conniving. They imagine that the coyote is sly, tricky and is purposely fooling the rancher by killing his sheep. They are unable to believe that any other explanation exists. Maybe they watched too many episodes of Looney Tunes? Through the study of coyote behavior it has been said that killing the coyotes as a way to protect livestock is actually a step backwards. When the coyote population is "controlled" the remaining female coyotes accomodate for those changes by breeding every year, rather than every two or three years and by having larger litters. The number of pups that survive increases during this time. With a larger litter and more pups to feed, the female coyote struggles to find food sources and then kills a sheep to feed her seven or eight or more pups.

Ranchers complain, "We've lost so many sheep!" They do not say this in compassion towards their sheep - they say this because their sheep equal dollar signs. When a coyote kills a sheep, a rancher loses money. When someone with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Damage Animal Control kills a coyote, the rancher doesn't lose money, and the employee hired to kill gets paid. Coyotes are killed as a free service to these ranchers. Traps are set that literally cut the paw off of the coyote and leave her on the ground to die. They are also killed by tricky and slyly placed neck snares and by rifles.

We have invaded the coyotes home by the business of agriculture - by producing sheep for wool and meat. Two entirely unneccesary things. The coyotes have adapted to humans taking over their land and homes. To this idea, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Damage Animal Control says that if coyotes were unable to eat livestock, they would eat deer and the deer population would diminish. Advocates for the coyotes stated the simple fact that this is not the case and that humans would still kill more deer than the coyote would. Another solution would be to stop breeding cattle and to allow the deer to eat the grass that the cattle use, this way the deer population would have a reliable food source and would not be in danger of extinction (in this particular scenario.)

Some scientists are attempting to reduce the number of pups in the coyote population, as coyotes without pups to feed are less likely to kill larger animals. They state, "We are not trying to reduce the number, we are trying to change their behavior." These scientists who show an insincere concern for the coyotes are trying to fool their reproductive biology. They are collecting coyotes from the wild and containing them in small pens, giving them drugs and performing experiments on them. The scenes shown give a sense of how stressful this is on the coyote, a wild animal who is now confined to a small cage in an unfamiliar environment. The coyotes are shown pacing back and forth in their cages.

The ranchers and Agriculture Department continue to insist that predators need to be managed. Again, since childhood, our views on animals have developed and we have been taught that predators are bad. We should fear them and for our safety and protection, it is ok to kill them. They are dispensible animals. As Paul Shepard reminds us in Thinking Animals, as children, we are shown that the predator symbolizes evil and we learn to have sympathy for the prey. We have been taught this rule in many Disney films.

The definition of predator is: one that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain. It is interesting that this definition fits far better with the ranchers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Damage Animal Control. The coyotes are not victimizing the sheep, they are practicing what they know of their own ecology. They are killing the sheep for nourishment and survival; their food sources are diminishing because land is being taken away from them. The rancher and U.S. DADAC are victimizing and destroying the coyotes in very cruel and inhumane ways for their own financial gain. It is also interesting that we label coyotes as sly and tricky, but their behavior does not exhibit these traits. This behavior is presented in the action of the ranchers and the U.S. DADAC. They exhibit this behavior to the extent of digging holes to hide their traps, wearing camouflage, hiding behind tall grass to shoot and kill coyotes, and imitating the coyote's call in order to kill an entire pack at once.

The relationships with animals that were presented in this film are based entirely on the symbolism that animals are given - these symbols that are unavoidable as they are such a huge part of our childhood and adult lives. The people who are killing these coyotes are doing so because they believe coyotes are "bad" animals. This is how they relate to animals - in a negative way, unable to look past their assumptions and what society has told them.

The advocates for coyotes show their compassion by abolishing these stereotypes. Unlike Treadwell, they are not trying to make friends with the coyotes, they are not living among the coyotes, and they are not presenting the coyotes as equals to humans. They are compassionate about the life of this animal and are pointing a finger at industry. They are able to be honest with the fact that we, as humans, have invaded so many homes of animals. The land that once belonged to wildlife is diminishing as we put a dollar sign on every move we make. One admirable sheep rancher states, of the coyotes, "They've always been here, before we were here."

Arctic Dreams - Part II

*Silly polar bears! Hey! Share some with your sister!

Barry Lopez's chapter entitled, Tornarssuk, in his book Arctic Dreams, examines the relationship humans have had with the polar bear. In continuing to look at how and why we create connections with animals, this chapter helped define the many types of relationships that can exist among one species - humans - and one animal.

Through Lopez's writings, I understand the beauty that exists in the polar bear, in its physicality and the intricacies in its behavior and relationships. I am grateful that Lopez can provide a wealth of information on this species of bear. For people like myself who enjoy reading nature essays and learning about animal behavior and relationships, writers such as Lopez show us the true beauty of the subject - not just the symbolic appeal of a polar bear's life, whether it be the bear's ferocity or the mother/cub relationship, but the scientific answers to how a polar bear's blubber and fur create warmth, the mother's urge to balance hunting with taking care of her cubs, the Eskimos relationships with polar bears and the history of European's interactions and treatment of polar bears.

After reading just one chapter in a book, I feel as though I am invading the privacy of these bears. Is it fair that I am able to know so much about their lives, yet I will never meet one of them? Learning about the intimate behavior of the everyday life of a polar bear is what creates in me an appreciation, respect, and love for this animal. Although, I then consider the research that might have been done in order for this knowledge to be written down in a book for me to read. I take in this knowledge selfishly, disregarding the bears that were drugged, tagged, darted, made vulnerable, and even killed in order for me to obtain this knowledge. This does not pertain to everything Lopez tells; very much of what he tells of the polar bear is from observation, true accounts from Eskimos, and general history. More than once in this chapter, Lopez notes the ambivalence that scientists have felt when capturing these bears for research. The measures taken are insensitive and sometimes cruel. At the end of the chapter, Lopez writes:

"One of the females we darted went down near a jumble of shattered ice. While the others made measurements, I looked at her feet. I had once been told that polar bear claws show an annual shading, faint rings, which could be used reliably to age a bear, as is the case with ringed seals. But there were none that I could detect. I looked at the details of her fur and felt the thickness of her ears, as though examining a museum specimen. Uncomfortable with all this, I walked over to the pressure ridge and sat on a slab of broken sea ice. It was a beautiful day, the skies clear behind a thin layer of very high cirrus, which made the sky a paler blue. About five below zero. No wind. As I sat there my companions rolled the unconscious bear over on her back and I saw a trace of pink in the white fur between her legs. The lips of her vulva were swollen. Her genitalia were in size and shape like a woman's. I looked away. I felt I had invaded her privacy. For the remainder of the day I could not rid myself of this image of vulnerability." (118)

It is heartbreaking that biologists, scientists, and researchers who love wildlife and got into the field because they love wildlife, must conduct their research in this way. It is so insensitive and disrespectful to treat animals as though they do not have a life outside of the being the symbols we have created. Is the polar bear just a big white bear who lives in the arctic - or at the zoo - that's where I've seen them, drinking coca-cola?! Is that all they are?

Lopez writes of only two or three examples in which the knowledge was gained through hands-on research where the bear was tagged, darted, or drugged. When Lopez writes of the polar bear's walk, its habits, its relationships, and its similarities to the Eskimo, we are able to learn so much more about this bear. We truly learn about the polar bear through writings of observation and from stories of the Eskimos whom have lived among the polar bear, non-intrusively and without speculation.

It is the writings of long-term observation that fill me with a love and respect of wildlife and nature. I wish I had more knowledge on bear biology. I'm not sure why it is a necessity for humans to understand bear biology. I wonder if it is only fulfilling a curiosity. When scientists dart and drug animals it only inspires us to want to know more. To invade these animals even further. The ambivalence that scientists have, as Lopez mentioned both in Tornarssuk and A Presentation of Whales, shows the disconnection that is happening. Does poking, prodding, drugging, and treating the animal as scientific reseach really show compassion and respect towards these animals?

Tornarssuk

Reminder: Here is an article I want to read:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/api-ipy/default.asp?lang=En&n=49C984AC-1

Here are some notes I took while reading the polar bear chapter in Barry Lopez's, Arctic Dreams. I will use these to do a write up eventually! This pile of books continues to distract me - I kinda just want to start reading these!

• By learning what polar bear had eaten, scientists also learned what the seal had eaten and what the larger fish had eaten
• "The bears moved as if the country had belonged to them."
• "The ice bear" "The sea bear" genus ursus
• Polar bears have been observed to be retiring and unaggressive, although their "ferocity" has been portrayed in artwork and stories about them. Except when we want them to look cute - then they look cute!
• Pages 83 - 84 - description of bear's physical body
• Page 87 - bears relationship with the ringed seal
• Page 88 - heat/blubber/habitat - How does this knowledge benefit us or help the polar bear?
• To watch in the woods requires intricacy
• Successful bears live to be around thirty years of age
• Compare to Treadwell - Compassionate observation vs. Forcing a friendship
• Cubs are born blind, deaf, and cannot smell - How do scientists know this? By observing alone?
• We can relate to the polar bear mother's nurturing and caring behavior towards her cubs as a human mother would car for her child.
• How can we observe "cute" behavior - sitting outside of the den and rolling around in the sun and sliding down the valleys - as more than "cute?"
• Mother balances the urge to hunt with taking care of her cubs
• Eskimos beliefs about polar bears vs. scientists? Scientist's views disrespectful to polar bears or eskimos? Or neither?
• Can scientists and eskimos work together?
• It is remarkable to be able to leave speculation alone
• Eskimo's disapproval of non-long term observers
• What if I was judged on six months of my behavior? Yikes.
• For polar bears, sharing their kills is an important part to maintain a healthy population
• Polar bears live alone after two years of age, they are not social bears, as grizzly bears are
• Our conceptions of polar bears are stylized
• Pages 110-12 - cruel tricks on bears, feeling victimized by bears
• Page 113 - Eskimos kill bears respectfully
• Page 113 - symbolism placed on bears
• Churchill bears - tourist attraction, luring bears to dumpsters, staging, photographers - how is this similar or different to Grandma's relationship with the eagles?
• Page 117 - Biologist's ambivalence - "Why am I doing this?"
  

Vince Shute Wildlife Sanctuary

While working on my paper...I became distracted by this! I was searching for information on bear biology and found a link to this website - http://www.americanbear.org/ I became instantly curious, because what I found was a wildlife sanctuary, housing a majority of black bears, not far from my hometown of Minneapolis! At first glance, I was not sure about the sanctuary, I wondered how much land was available to the bears and why this sanctuary was in place, what was its philosophy?

There is a great story behind the founder, Vince Shute. I kinda wish I could have set him up on a date with my grandma. Vince Shute was born in 1913, he worked at his family farm until the depression hit and the cows had to be sold. He then decided to work in the Northwoods, to become a logger, living in the woods among wildlife. Due to fear of and annoyance by the black bears food stealing habits, Vince and his fellow loggers shot and killed any bears they encountered. As Vince had spent time around these bears, he felt they were not a threat and did not need to be killed. His quote was, "The bears weren't mean, only hungry." He became passionate about creating a respectful coexistence between humans and black bears. Vince and the Sanctuary make it very clear that black bears can and will attack; humans are more vulnerable when expressing fear or being careless about leaving food out that bears can easily get to.

The sanctuary's land stretches out for 360 acres. Up to eighty black bears and other wildlife visit the sanctuary from time to time, some staying longer than others. It appears that while at the sanctuary the bears carry out "normal" bear behavior, although at times there are hundreds of visitors to the sanctuary in one day, and I'm sure this affects the bears behavior. They offer free volunteer and internship opportunities, providing a space for people to observe and partake in "unobtrusive research." The sanctuary does provide food for the bears, in the form of fruit and nuts, which volunteers place in feeding areas. It appears that there are not any bears that rely soley on the food from the sanctuary, as they all leave the sanctuary for days at a time, most likely to hunt.

At first I was wary of this sanctuary, but I really like the mission and philosophy that it presents. It gives students, researchers, and others a chance to observe bear behavior without interfering with them physically by tagging or drugging them. I do not agree with the feeding of the bears. The bears are leaving the sanctuary to hunt and are able to find food on their own, I do not feel that feeding them extra food is necessary. Although, without the food offering, the bears would not come to the sanctuary for the paying visitors to see them from the viewing deck and for the photographers to get images of bears in their "natural habitat." The people who run the sanctuary seem to have compassion for these bears and truly want to help them. It does not seem as though they are becoming too physically close to the bears, they just simply observe them and care for their wellbeing. And what lucky bears to have a poop-scooping service, wouldn't get that out in the wild!

Can you sense my ambivalence?