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?

Peaceable Kingdom

Some thoughts on the film Peaceable Kingdom...

I haven't cried at a movie in awhile. This is a documentary film about farmers in the agro-business, raising cows, chickens, sheep, and whatever else we eat, as a commodity. After years of running these businesses, these few farmers realized what they were doing did not connect with their heart and soul. They believed that by having a farm, raising cattle, they were doing what they loved, they were caring for animals. Eventually the volume got out of hand and one farmer is raising 7,000 cattle. And still telling himself every day, I love these animals. I love them because they are putting food on the table in the form or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even the farmers who had much smaller volume farms had to accept the day when the sheep they had been caring for and had become a part of their family was sent to slaughter. They would shed a tear and then move on.

The farmers shown in the documentary have since opened their land to animals in another form, as farm sanctuaries. They have changed their diets to reflect their love of animals. This is a remarkable thing to do, especially for a man who has nourished his belly in the form of animal flesh for over fifty years. Howard Lyman, also known as the Mad Cowboy, was at the screening on Thursday and took questions from the audience. He spoke candidly about his vegan diet and joked about how to successfully order at a restaurant. This was particularly heartwarming to me, as some days I give up hope on that generation of people! I think many older people do not realize that farming has changed. These animals are purely commodities and just as any big business is run, Target, Wal-mart, etc, these animals are treated as only objects that make money. Even if they are raised on a family farm, the day still comes when someone decides they will be slaughtered. There is no such thing as humane slaughter. Animals are intelligent and they can sense what is happening from the moment the slaughter truck comes to pick them up. And the people who work in slaughterhouses have been desensitized and are unable to treat the animals with love, kindness, and respect. The entire experience is traumatizing and extremely cruel.

It is just so hard for me to believe that so many people can keep living in ignorance, believing that the dead flesh that they purchase at the grocery store was humanely killed. That is an oxymoron! Especially when the being that is killed is killed for profit. Not because they are in pain, not because they are old and dying and no longer able to live a happy life. They are killed so that the people who raised them and slaughtered them can get a paycheck.

Ugh. I'm done for now. I could go on and on, but I'll keep it to myself. As it relates to my study, these farmers were relating to animals, they thought they loved their jobs because they were working with animals. They were placing symbols on animals, dollar signs and hamburgers. And in a way, these symbols, for a time, made the farmers love the animals even more. The animals were providing a living for these farmers, they were making their house payments, car payments, and putting food on the table. Once this turned around, the farmers continued to relate to the animals, but on an entirely different level. They no longer see the animals as symbols. They see them as intelligent, loving, creatures who deserve respect. They see them as having emotions, habits, patterns of behavior, just like themselves, but, they simply speak another language. They are able to relate to these animals in an entirely non-selfish way. The balance of what they are providing the animals and what the animals provide them is equal. They are living a life together. They are allowing these animals to live the life that they deserve.

A Presentation of Whales

*The above is a photograph of beachcombers climbing on a wood and aluminum sculpture of a beached whale. This is located on a beach in The Netherlands.

After reading Lopez's essay, A Presentation of Whales, I find myself wondering what kind of person would stop what they are doing and drive to the beach to see this very real and saddening presentation of beached whales. One man even drove five or six hours just to see the spectacle unfolding on the Oregon coast.

On an evening in June of 1979, forty-one beached sperm whales turned up on the sand on the central Oregon coast. These whales are 40-60 feet long and 35-45 tons. There was no way that humans would be able to save these whales. Yet, some believed that they could save them and came to the scene with blankets to soak up the ocean water and place over the whales. Some tied ropes around a whale, attempting, with the strength of forty, to pull the whale back into the ocean. They failed themselves and the whale, injuring the whale further with the cuts into its flesh from the rope.

Scientists rushed to the scene to begin work on obtaining samples of whale blood, teeth, flesh, and organs. A whale was cut open with chainsaws as a dying, but not yet dead whale pounded the beach with its fluke. Michael Gannon, director of a group called Oregonians Cooperating to Protect Whales said, "The effect of all this was that it interfered with the spiritual and emotional ability of people to deal with the phenomenon. It was like being at a funeral where you were not allowed to mourn." (127) I understand this statement and agree with it, although, I am unsure why you would attend a funeral, or even more, the actual death and passing of a being whom you never knew, never met, and never loved. Death is such a beautiful and private experience and I am struggling to understand whether this was an act of love and respect or if it was something insensitive and disrespectful.

Although I would never want to show up as a bystander to this sort of event, I can imagine that many showed up with hopes that they could help the whales and upon realizing they couldn't, just stayed to watch the whales dying, not being able to remove themselves from the scene. I believe that many people observing felt a sense of compassion towards these whales, although I cannot understand the many bystanders who were entertained by the events unfolding and showed no respect for the end of 41 lives that was taking place.
I am unsure about my feelings towards the scientists position. I understand the great opportunity that this event presented for research. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine the scene as it unfolded and how chainsaws and attempts at euthanization fit in with this profound moment of the death of 41 whales. Bob Warren, a patrolman for the U.S. Forest Service said, "I had no conception of what a whale beaching would be like. I was apprehensive about all the tourists and the law-enforcement atmosphere. When I drove up, the whole thing hit me in the stomach: I saw these numbers, these damn orange numbers - 41, 40, 39 - spray-painted on these dying animals." (128) Two thousand on-lookers showed up to watch. And there was nothing they could do but watch and this is what they were there precisely to do. "[Warren] recalls his rage watching people poke at a sensitive area under the whales' eyes to make them react, and calmly directing people to step back, to let the animals die in peace." (129)

Marine biologist, Michael Graybill was at the scene and "regarded efforts to save the whales as unnatural interference in their death. Later, he cynically observed "how much 'science' took place at the heads of sperm whales" where people were removing teeth; and he complained that if they really cared about the worldwide fate of whales, Greenpeace volunteers would have stayed to help scientists with postmortems. (Some did. Others left because they could not stand to watch the animals die.)"(134) Greenpeace was involved in the attempt at saving a whale by pulling it back into the ocean with ropes. Even if Greenpeace had succeeded at placing a whale back into the ocean, I believe they would have failed. So much damage had already been done that the whale most likely was not suitable to live anywhere, even in its home, the ocean.

Michael Piper, of Greenpeace "was so disturbed, so emabarrassed by the drunks and by people wrangling to get up on the whales or in front of photographers, that he left." (126) I just cannot believe that 41 animals deaths is a source of entertainment. This is completely absurd to me. This has reminded me of my thoughts about Timothy Treadwell. To many, his life was a joke. After he died, people saw Grizzly Man and made jokes about Treadwell and casually said, "he deserved what he got." When I was looking for an image of Treadwell for my blog, one of the first that came up was a Timothy Treadwell halloween costume - a person in a giant bear costume and themselves as Treadwell in the belly of the bear surrounded by blood and death. Clever idea, yes. But I just don't get the joke.

A scientist at the beach, Deborah Duffield said, "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." (139) I imagine that it was more difficult to witness than a human dying because people respect the death of a human, but not that of an animal. The scientists on the beach were doing their jobs while trying to set aside the life outside of the whales, the riduculousness of the crowd, the insincerity and disrespect for life happening around them.

Piper of Greenpeace said of the event, "The best thing we could have done, was offer our presence, to be with them while they were alive, to show some compassion." (126) Compassion. As in, not getting a six pack and going to watch some whales die, not poking and prodding a dying creature, not turning their death into an event other then their own.
As I am looking at how we relate to animals, I am wondering how some were relating to the whales by doing this. Why did some feel the urge to show up and witness this event? After some outwardly displayed acts of disrespect, did they go home and feel something, anything for these animals? Will the event affect them years later? Or is it just something they did on their Saturday night?

It is difficult for me to understand this event, because I am unable to create a parallel event involving the death of humans. An event where 41 humans are dying in a span of hours and attempts at saving them cannot physically take place. Would we be poking and prodding their dying bodies? Would we show up drunk to witness the event? Would numbers be spray painted onto their dying bodies? Would complete strangers show up with their children to watch the people as they took their last breath? Would they want a photo souvenir of the event and ask someone to take their picture in front of the 41 dying people?
What is it about the death of animals that is so different from the death of a humans? Are their lives not as significant as our own?

I'll come back to this one...

Barry Lopez - A Reflection on White Geese

*The above image is of stuffed geese "in flight" at the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center.

In Barry Lopez's essay, A Reflection on White Geese, found in his book Crossing Open Ground, he introduced me to Tule Lake and what has become its National Wildlife Refuge.

This is a wildlife refuge that has been developed and maintained to house and manage waterfowl including ducks, snow geese, and ring necked pheasants. It may be the only place in the world with this incredible volume of snow geese, visitors can see over 300 geese in flight above the lake. At the refuge, time can be spent at the visitor's center, the bookstore, renting canoes and hunting waterfowl within the refuge. Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge advertises these activities along with seasonal viewing opportunities and lists nearby accomodations to stay overnight.

I'm not sure if I'm just naive or oblivious, but I had no idea that a place called a wildlife refuge happily welcomed hunting on its grounds. A place to take a scenic, hunting vacation. Maybe families go here at peak seasons as a destination? This is very intriguing to me. Intriguing is my new word for absurd.

Lopez states, "...it is ironic that the one place on earth a person might see these geese in numbers large enough to cover half the sky is, itself, a potential threat to their existence." (25) Due to agriculture and industry, snow geese in California have lost miles and miles of what once was their home, and that is why the refuge began. But by allowing hunting on the grounds the refuge is making it easier for hunters to hunt. The wildlife is contained in one space and the refuge gives maps to its hunting visitors which display prime locations on the refuge. Mentioned in the essay is the additional fact that many hunters, for whatever reason, shoot some animals and leave to them in the refuge, crippled, and to die of starvation.

Through speaking with Bob Fields, the refuge's manager, and biologist, Ed O'Neill, Lopez learns that "By carefully adjusting the length of the hunting season and the bag limits each year, and by planting food for the birds, refuge managers try to maintain large bird populations, in part to keep private hunting clubs along the flyway enthusiastic about continuing to provide additional habitiat for the birds...We preseve them principally to hunt them" (30-31)

In 1975 a group of Alaskan Eskimos who depend on the goose population for survival visited the Tule Lake Refuge to observe how it was managing the wildlife populations. They could not believe the volume of birds in one place, something they had never witnessed. They also could not believe the waste that hunters were creating, the abandoning of crippled geese, left to die on the refuge. Bob Fields had extensive talks with the Eskimos and "found himself talking with a kind of hunter he rarely encountered anymore - humble men with a respect for the birds and a sense of responsibility toward them." (34) Creating a space to "preserve" wildlife and still allowing hunters to hunt for sport does not invite the type of hunters who respect animals and who show a sensitivity and gratitiude which the animals deserve. This type of hunter does not hunt at a wildlife refuge.

From a conversation with Bob Fields, Lopez writes, "he is candid in expressing his distaste for a type of hunter he still meets too frequently - belligerent, careless people for whom hunting is simply violent recreation; people who trench out and rut the refuge's roads in oversize four-wheel-drive vehicles, who are ignorant of hunting laws or who delight in breaking them as a part of a "game" they play with refuge personnel." (35) Although there is a sense of compassion in the manager and others involved in the refuge, it is what it is. It is a space whose economic livelihood is earned from the staging of wildlife, membership fees for hunting, and its portrayal as a destination place.

Fields often basks in the beauty of the birds in the refuge. As I have seen hundreds of eagles in my grandmother's front yard in Homer, Alaska, I can imagine that seeing hundreds of snow geese in flight is a similar experience. This experience consists of a moment of awe, where words cannot be spoken. Where you want to be left with only the birds, a desire to keep your moment private from others. In Homer I took many solo walks along the ocean so that I could keep this experience to myself. Fields states, "I have known all along there was more to it than managing the birds so they could be killed by some macho hunter." (35) What is it? Is this completely selfish? Diminishing animals land further and further and creating a land "for them" for our enjoyment? Even if hunting wasn't allowed, this refuge was in part created for the birds to be contained so that we could experience their beauty, the awe that encaptures us when we see the grace of their movements, their chaotic, yet simultaneous flight above Tule Lake.

*The above image is of photographers and eagles in my grandma's front yard in Homer, Alaska.

Before agriculture, this land was inhabited by natives who used its resources to the fullest, who contributed to the life cycle of this land as hunter-gatherers. Now, "the hunters have become farmers, the farmers landowners. Their sons have gone to the cities and become businessmen, and the sons of these men have returned with guns, to take advantage of an old urge, to hunt. But more than a few come back with a poor knowledge of the birds, the land, the reason for killing. It is by now a familiar story, for which birds pay their lives." (38)

Lopez writes of the popular argument that geese populations need to be hunted for their own survival, to manage their population. He, in turn, argues that the snow goose breeding patterns fluctuate so intricately that it is not possible for humans to pinpoint their natural inclinations so precisely, to weave their way into the snow geese's ecology.

In conclusion, Lopez writes, "We must search in our way of life, I think, for substantially more here than economic expansion and continued good hunting. We need to look for a set of relationships similar to the ones Fields admired among the Eskimos. We grasp at what is beautiful in a flight of snow geese rising against an overcast sky as easily as we grasp the beauty in a cello suite; and intuit, I believe, that if we allow these things to be destroyed or degraded for economic or frivilous reasons we will become deeply and strangely impoverished." (38)

This essay has helped me to delve even deeper into my grandmother's story. Images I have seen of the geese at Lake Tule remind me of images I have taken in my grandmother's front yard. The volume of eagles was breathtaking and a very emotional experience for me. As my grandmother fed the eagles each morning, she was not doing so for any sort of financial gain. She was not hunting or allowing others to hunt them. She was not vacationing. She was living her life in the home that she loved. She did not earn a penny from living her life. She was just doing what she knew and what life dealt to her. She welcomed every last photographer into her home so she could share a piece of her life and of the eagles lives with them. I believe that grandma wanted to show people that these birds were more than just symbols, more than just a magnificent sight. Grandma knew they had complicated lives of their own and she just wanted to nourish them. Grandma never even spoke of these emotional experiences that I had when I saw the hundreds of birds in flight. She just did what she did as if it was her duty in life. It was what she was supposed to do and therefore, she woke up each winter morning and fed the eagles.



*The above image is of eagles in my grandmother's front yard in Homer, AK.

Little Bit Know Something

I've read some essays in Robin Ridington's, Little Bit Know Something and have come out with what seems like a very honest understanding of the Beaver Indians of British Columbia. I am amazed at how Ridington is able to set aside certain ideals about data collecting and just simply listen to the stories of the Dunne-za. This is the "data" he was looking for. These stories and myths are their history and there is not a better, more honest and sensitive way to approach the learning and re-telling of this history. In this book, Ridington shares, word for word, the stories of elders in this tribe. He records their storytelling on a tape and puts it directly in the book. He then re-tells the story adding some of his own understanding of the heart and soul of this people. His telling of the story has the utmost sincerity and sensitivity. When elders in this society tell their stories to outsiders they are unable to explain the knowledge they have and their own intuition. This knowledge and insightfulness is inside of them and is something that many people would not understand. Ridington takes what he has learned of their knowledge and incorporates it into the Dunne-za stories and helps us to better understand their history.

Fox and Chickadee

Ridington tells the true story of Japasa, a man who knew the foxes, rabbits, frogs, and wind. He tells of spending twenty days in the bush, living with foxes who cared for him, brought him food as if he was one of their own. He saw foxes and rabbits who wore clothes like people. The wind spoke to him in the form of a man. This man told him he would protect him.

"Both of Japasa's stories were true to his experience. When he was a boy, Japasa knew frogs and foxes and wind. He knew their songs. He entered the myths that are told about them. He obtained power by joining his own life force to theirs. He knew them in the bush away from society of other humans...He became their child, one of their kind. He saw them clothed in a culture like his own." (10-11)

At first these stories made me consider a parallel to the symbolism that we place on animals. Are these myths creating symbols and not considering the animals as individual, intricate beings? Are these stories made up? Is that insincere to the animals in the stories? Through reading more stories and Ridington's re-telling of them I realized how these mythical stories are creating a closeness to animals and nature that is, in my mind, admirable. It is difficult to understand these stories as truths. But reading the history of these people, you begin to realize that these stories are completely true. They are created in the heart and souls of young children and grow with them, become a part of them and are one day told from the heart of an eldery person to children who have yet to know what their own story will be.

I found this segment to be very insightful, "Mythic events are different. They are essential truths, not contingent ones. I can be a frog or a fox and still be a person. I can know them as I know myself. If I am an Indian, I can be led toward a place where this knowledge will come naturally." (11)

Also this one, "We misunderstand myth as interpreting it as flawed history." (12)

And, "The true history of these people will have to be written in a mythic language. Like the stories of Japasa, it will have to combine stories of people coming together with other people and those that tell of people coming together with animals. (13)

Through Japasa's stories it is clear that the Beaver Indians relate to animals as if it were second nature. It is a necessity in their lives. As children they are given insight and intuition surrounding their animals. This stays with them forever, waiting for the time to share their story. They see animals in each other. They live with animals and know them in a way that is not based on behavior patterns or assumptions. They know them, it is a knowledge that they gain just from living. They do not seek to know about the animals, they just do. They see animals represented in their culture as humans. The animals use humans as a way to speak to each other and to tell stories, insight, and knowledge.

A True Story

Ridington writes, "As an anthropologist, I learned that Dunne-za hunters did not travel the bush at random in search of game. The trails they followed were already known to them through dreams. They did not take the lives of animals; rather, they received the gift of life from animals that were known to them." (23)

The Beaver Indians did not have an abundance of meat to eat. They would go hungry for days when they could have simply gone into the woods and found their next meal. They did not consider animals so simply. They believed that knowledge was acquired through their spirit animals and to find an animal waiting for them, waiting to nourish them with knowledge and life was a gift in itself. Each hunt was a gift of love and survival. It was not a chance happening event. Animal spirits were waiting to provide this knowledge and intuition that would come to the Beaver Indians through dreams.

Nachi, a 78 year old woman told Ridington about her true encounter, as a child, with the spirit of a dreaming bear. Her family at camp had not eaten for days and Nachi's grandfather sent her out to find a porcupine to eat. She went alone and searched for something that would tell her where and how to find this porcupine. Nachi came across a pile of broken sticks underneath a spruce tree. She was standing on a bear's den but did not realize it. She took a long stick to poke inside the den to help her feel for what was in there. She felt something, but heard no sounds. She found a chewed up stick and took it back to camp where she shows her grandfather...

Ridington writes Nachi's story, in this story, the bear is called, The Dreamer...

"...She left a weary trail of tracks behind her in the snow. Only the Dreamer could go beyond his own trail. The connection between person and animal had to take place first in the mind before it could be realized in substance. Inside the darkness of his sleep, he was dreaming of the girl child. Through him, the people of old were sending a song to the girl child...He broke sticks for her and marked them with his teeth. This was a sign. He had long since left his tracks far behind...She reached inside to touch his flesh. It was to be the life of her people. The old people could dream ahead of their bodies. This was to be his gift to her...The Dreamer was waiting for her in silence. He did not move. He did not growl..." (27-28)

I hear this story and I understand the strong connection that the Dunne-za have to animals. They see their knowledge as gifts inside of them. Without the animals, they would not have their own knowledge and intuitive sense. They would not have the animal spirit within them. They would not have life.

The Dunne-za do not put on camouflage and conceal themselves from the animals. They do not eat a hearty breakfast and lunch and then go hunt for enjoyment. They hunt when they have nothing else to eat. They know that the animals are waiting for them to give them nourishment and knowledge. They do not brag about their hunt or take pictures to show their friends. They look at the animals as bearers of knowledge and they follow signs and symbols left behind and learn of their meaning. They allow for the animal's knowledge and spirit to continue in their own life and and to nourish their bodies and souls. They have respect for the animals, as much, if not more than is deserved of the eldest elders with many stories to tell.

I have respect for the Dunne-za and for the way they relate to animals. I believe that animals deserve the utmost respect and the Dunne-za present the epitome of respect to animals. The stories they tell are beautiful and honest and kindhearted.

I very much doubt that this respect and beauty lives in game hunters today. At the extreme opposite end of the spectrum are the hunting magazines that feature gear and guns and photos of the kill sent in by readers. Advertisements for steak houses and McDonalds. Time taken off of work to take a hunting vacation. To invest money in guns and camouflage clothing. To buy a gigantic truck to drive your kill many miles back to its new home -your freezer. This is the epitome of disrespect.

I wonder if there is a middle ground that exists, although I can't imagine one. I believe the only way to hunt is by living among the animals, traveling on foot, having the utmost respect for animals, not hunting when you already have an abundance of food and not investing money into hunting. The Dunne-za were able to hunt in this way. Paul Shepard reminds us that at the time of hunter-gatherer societies, work and jobs as we know them did not exist.

Chelsea's soapbox...

This is a difficult area for me, because I do not agree with eating meat in the society that I know. If you are working and spending your earnings on food, you have the power to eat that which does not support the meat industry - something entirely different than hunting. And if you are earning money, hunting is not necessary, as you can purchase fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, etc. If you are spending money on these things and you respect and have compassion towards animals, hunting is not an option. When you are able to provide yourself with non-meat sources of protein, vitamins and nutrients, your body does not need meat. I do not believe hunting is necessary unless you are living in a society where this is your main source of food. It will be difficult for me to find a form of hunting in modern society that I agree with.

Corvus: Part II

I am almost finished with Corvus: A Life with Birds. I had intended to try to read excerpts from this novel, but instead am intrigued to read the entire book.

Woolfson discussed anthropomorphism, the ascribing of human characteristics to non-humans, as, "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..." (155) Often, we are unable to view animals as unique individuals, we are trying to relate to them or only allowing ourselves to see them in one distinct way. Woolfson has been living with birds for much of her adult life and has been able to see them for who they are, unique, intricate beings. She invites them into her life and they coexist together. Her birds are capable of observing Woolfson and her family's behaviors as well. In the book she recalls certain birds learning her language and having conversations in the same tones and inflections as herself. One particular bird, Spike, when called by name, would respond, "What?" Responding louder when not heard the first time.

Many times visitors to Woolfson's home would be frightened of particular birds, mainly the corvids, with their black feathers and prominent beaks. This brings so many images to mind of the silhouette of the raven on the cover of a horror novel. The birds in folktales symbolizing death or bad luck. Hitchcock's film, The Birds. Because these birds were born with black feathers rather then yellow or blue or gold they will continually invoke feelings of fear in some humans.

Woolfson does not guess as to why birds perform certain behaviors. She creates a handful of reasons and understands that still she may never know why a bird is taking a bath at a particular time and day. Although, she is around them so often, 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.

"No one knows the true purpose of birds' sunning. They may do it to help regulate temperature, to increase their exposure to vitamin D, or to reduce feather parasites, but whatever it is, pleasure too appears to be involved." (Woolfson, 68)

Again, Woolfson goes back to bird song. "As dawn is still too dark for effective food-searching, birds may use the time to re-establish territorial rights, singing their most elaborate songs to impress and attract mates, among them new migrators who arrive at dawn. They may sing too in a post-darkness burst of enthusiasm, an expression of pleasure or an affirmation of rights, a bird's rare moment of dominion." (250) I love how Woolfson is able to observe her birds behavior sincerely and to get to know them better as companions. She does not need to know all of the answers and willingly accepts that she may never know all the answers. She is thankful for these birds existence in her life. If they decided to leave in the morning and never come back she would still have gratitude for them.

Timothy Treadwell

Last night I watched Grizzly Man for my fourth or fifth time. I have always been intrigued by this movie. This time I wanted to watch with a somewhat different perspective. I wanted to look closer at how he is connecting with animals and set aside my preconceived notions about him.

My initial thoughts of viewing Grizzly Man in the past - I thought Timothy was a little crazy, although a beautiful person. This documentary shows that he truly loves animals. Initially I struggled with whether or not his love of wildlife was entirely selfish, as a way to treat his alcoholism or if it was sincere and unselfish. In my past viewings of this film I thought it was amazing to see bears this close, to see their movement for prolonged periods of time. This was not a still frame and it was not hiking in Alaska and thinking, "Shit a bear - run!" It was amazing. I wondered if I was getting tricked into believing that this portrayal was completely natural.

This time around I had a new perspective. Below is a bulleted list of notes I took during the film:

• Timothy intended to show bears in their natural habitat


• "He wanted to leave the confinements of humaness." -Herzog


• Treadwell connected immediatley with school children and never charged a fee for numerous visits to schools


• "I think they've been misunderstood." Treadwell's response to an interviewer referring to bears as the most dangerous animals


• "I would not go into a bear's home and kill a bear." -Treadwell


• "Bears kill for survival. They are big and ferocious and come equipped to eat you." -Police chief


• "He wanted to become the bear." - Treadwell's friend


• Treadwell wanted to mutually mutate into a wild animal - to connect so deeply that you're no longer human. -Treadwell's friend


• Insight from Larry Van Dacle, bear biologist, "humans desire to get into the bear's world - they see it as a simpler way of life, but it is very different from the human world and you cannot be a part of the bear world."


• Interview at Native American museum in Alaska - Treadwell tried to be a bear and this is the most ultimate form of disrespect. We've always avoided bears and they avoid us.


• Grizzly People Organization - founded by Timothy Treadwell and his friend - "To protect and preserve habitat."


• Timothy makes a plea for people to stop fox hunting and trapping. He states that if people only knew how sweet and kind these foxes were they would let them keep their beautiful fur.


• "Be a spirit in the wilderness." - Treadwell


• "Thank you to these animals for giving me a life, I had no life." -Treadwell


• Treadwell wanted to care for and protect the bears and other wildlife, he states, "They needed a caretaker and not a drunk."

I watched this movie with my partner and he was sarcastically agreeing with statements that Timothy made and that other people were making. I was taking everything in, sincerely trying to understand what drew Timothy to this lifestyle. I believe that many people viewed Treadwell's life as a joke and that he deserved what happened to him. I completely disagree. I am struggling with the impact that Treadwell had on bears ideas about humans by presenting them with a human who is kind, who loves them, and does not want to harm them. Although, I was able to see the beauty and sincerity that Timothy portrayed. At risk of sounding cheesy, he might sound like a nut telling animals "I love you" repeatedly, but I connected with Treadwell, because I want to tell every animal that I love them! But what is love and why does he love them?

Treadwell tells of his journey through alcoholism and how the bears saved him and gave him a reason not to drink and gave him a life. When people are judging Treadwell and calling him nuts or crazy or an idiot, I wonder where his life would have gone without his relationship with wildlife. If he had continued drinking and made a documentary about his relationship with alcohol would people have preferred that Timothy Treadwell?

Timothy was connecting with wildlife by living in their environment, by giving the animals names, by talking to them, by telling them stories. He was thankful for their existence every day. While Timothy had a deep connection to these animals, it seemed as though his presence was not significant to them. It appeared that sometimes they physically came close to him because they were curious, not necessarily because they were welcoming him into their home. He was always "the gentle warrior" as he called it, and knew when to be on guard.

This leaves me wondering can you truly connect with a person or animal who has you on the defense at all times? In the documentary, many times, Treadwell would tell a story with his back turned to a bear, he would have to keep turning around to make sure the bear wasn't coming too close with a certain look in its eyes. A bear would appear to be ready to strike and Timothy would be the warrior that he needed to be in that instant. Afterwards he would repeatedly tell the bear he loved him. As I did with my previous posts, I am pondering this relationship in the form of human to human. Consider one person trying to make friends with another, who, for whatever reason, might attack at any time. They almost attack you, you fight back verbally, they walk away. You tell them you love them over and over again. And you continue to persist in trying to be their friend.

I tried to find similarities in my grandmother's story and Timothy Treadwell's story. Grandma and Timothy both named their wildlife friends, Grandma allowed photographers to be very close to them to take photographs to share with the world and Timothy shared his videos with the world. Grandma and Timothy spoke to children, inspiring them to write numerous letters. Grandma responded to every letter, I imagine Timothy might have as well. Grandma did not ask for anything in return from photographers, tourists, or schools. Treadwell didn't ask for a cent for his numerous visits to schools.

The differences I found were that Grandma was inviting these birds to her front yard, she wasn't going to their home. These birds did not frighten Grandma in any way. She was physically able to help them when they were injured. She fed them. Certain eagles would hang out at Grandma's house all day, appearing to be perfectly content. In a spiritual sense, appearing to be watching over Gram.

Treadwell was trying so hard to connect with these bears and it seemed that they weren't open to that connection. Treadwell was able to make a connection with the foxes, as they wandered onto the top of his tent and let him pet them. He did not have to be on guard when he was connecting with them.

The images that Treadwell showed in his numerous hours of video are amazing and the closest many people will ever get to a bear. Although, the documentary told much more about Treadwell's emotional unstability than about wildlife. It gave a visual representation of bears, foxes, their surrounding environment, and Treadwell's observations about their relationships with each other.

Bears, foxes, and wildlife impacted Treadwell's life tremendously, without them, Treadwell's life would have gone down a different path and this documentary would not have been made and shared with the world. Although possibly viewed as one-sided, Treadwell's relationship with bears was still a significant one. Many are unsure about the overall impact Treadwell had on the bears, but I believe that the impact the bears had on Treadwell's life deserves them tremendous respect.

Corvus: A Life with Birds

I'm currently reading Corvus: A Life with Birds by Esther Woolfson and it is making me consider what a sad life we would have without birds! I am reflecting on the idea that we need animals in our lives. They are an integral part of our lives - they offer us a way to connect with nature, and our past and present. They provide us with the comfort of simply knowing they are there - knowing that something else exists. We need animals, but do they need us? Do they need us to feed them? To provide them comfort and relationships?

In Corvus: A Life with Birds, the author writes of her true account of accidentally becoming a bird keeper. Inheriting birds from friends and rescuing birds from the local pet shop became not only a hobby, but somewhat of a necessity. Her relationship with birds helped her to think critically about what it means to have a relationship. With humans and non-humans. Woolfson admits that previously she knew more about birds in literature, poetry, and art. She writes, "Usefully enough, I knew the Chinese characters for birds: snow goose, pheasant, kingfisher, phoenix...I was good with symbols. I could manage poignancy, sorrow, longing, separation. On the other hand, did I know how to feed a bird? Hold one? Had I ever looked a bird in the eye?"(Woolfson, 16-17) Looking at animals beyond symbolism is a difficult and powerful act. Looking at humans beyond our assumptions about them is a difficult act. And looking someone in the eye displays trust, openness, and sincerity. Does this act mean the same when we look an animal in the eye? Is there any reason is should be different?

Woolfson contemplates whether or not her relationship with her birds is one-sided. Is she merely a symbol of food to her birds? Simply the hand that feeds them? They meant so much more to her. "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)

Through Woolfson's relationship with her birds, she truly gets to know them. She distinguishes differences in personalities, she understands that some of her birds on some days desire more attention and on others want to roam free by themselves. Some attach themselves to other birds and some form bonds with certain people. Some dislike certain people.

As I continue to read this book I will be looking for ways that Woolfson is connecting and identifying with her birds and ways that she might not be. I will be looking for ways in which we can abolish the symbolism that we have already placed on animals. I imagine this is a pretty difficult task.

The relationships that Woolfson writes about are truly beautiful. Whether one-sided or not, these birds have created a life for her. They have taught her about relationships, kindness, cruelty, loyalty, and so much more. Can't wait to keep reading!