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!

Encounters with Nature - Paul Shepard - Part II

With each book I read for this course I will be looking for an answer to the question, "What are ways that we, as humans, relate to, connect with, and identify with animals?" In my reading of Encounters with Nature by Paul Shepard I found many ways that humans relate to and connect with animals:

• Some of us eat them
  


• Some of us hunt and kill them
  


• We act like animals in our play as children
  


• We include their likeness in art, poetry, and music
  

Paul Shepard believes that we as humans need animals to exist. Our heart, mind, body, and soul needs animals. Shepard would agree that without our connection to animals we would lose our state of well being.

"The human species emerged enacting, dreaming, and thinking animals and cannot be fully itself without them." (Shepard, 6)

"It is not only in human evolution that the animals - and, in a slightly different way, plants - were essential to the emergence of mind but the growth of the individual as well." (Shepard, 10)

"Just as the natural world provides us with the means of physical health - good air and water, nutrition, and healing substances - plants and animals are sensible figures in the health of mind." (Shepard, 13)

We have found ways in which we relate to animals that give us comfort. Without them we might feel discontent and alone. As children we learn about the world around us in picture books. From these books, we learn about bears, lions, billy goats, and wolves before we ever see them in real life. We sing songs about kookaburras and feel a closeness with nature and it's non-human animals. They allow us nourishment through eating their flesh. We paint their likenesses and we write poems about them. We feel as though we know them. Some find a closeness and spiritual connection to animals by hunting them.

There is a certain comfort in knowing that they are out there in the wilderness or in our city trees. I cannot imagine a walk through my neighborhood without bird songs. What a lonely walk! Their form as statues guard our homes and businesses and as pets they keep us company. We selfishly expect them to greet us when we get home, to warm our feet when we sleep, and to put up with us!

These ways in which we relate to animals makes it easy for us to give them singular attributes. We have been tought since childhood that bears are vicious, lions are ferocious, cats are curious, mice are timid, rabbits eat carrots, woodpeckers peck, and dogs are a man's best friend. "Dreams, folktales, and play contain the patent error of pretending that each animal corresponds to a single conventional attribute...True, this single dimension does not do justice to the intricate lives of these animals." (Shepard, 25) How insincere to say that this bird must be calling for it's mate, because that is why birds call. Maybe she is singing her favorite song, maybe she's saying hello, maybe she's happy, sad, or bored. Imagine if we labeled humans in this way...wait! We do! She's having a tantrum because she's a toddler. He likes rap music because he's black. He wakes up early because he's old. This insincerity and reducing someone to their elements happens with human and non-human animals, it happens with our notion of "the others." So it appears that if we are labeling animals in this way, we are connecting with them as well as we are connecting to people that we are labeling. Not very well!

The title of one chapter in Shepard's book is, The Animal: An Idea Waiting to Be Thought. So often, we have an idea about an animal and to us, that idea is that animal. Just like when we have an idea about a person, until we get to know that person and find a connection, that idea is who they are to us. Getting to know an animal is a pretty hard task. Getting to know another human is difficult enough, even when they speak the same language. We will never truly "know" an animal. We can only guess what they are thinking, feeling, and why they are doing what they are doing. This is like the makings of a bad relationship! When you try to guess why someone is doing something and assuming they did something because of some reason or another, you are very likely to be incorrect!

We can look at scientific research and learn why a bird sings, why a bear attacked a human, or why birds fly south, but as Paul Shepard would agree, animals are intricate beings, they have intricate lives, just as we do. There is not one explanation alone for their behavior.

Throughout Encounters with Nature hunting is mentioned as a way that humans relate to animals. Paul Shepard states, "Hunters are our agents of awareness. They are not only observers but participants and receivers. They know that we are members of a natural community and that the process of nature will never become so well understood that faith will cease to be important." (Shepard, 76-77) Shepard speaks very highly of hunters. He believes that they are the ultimate "superb minds." They are the bearers of knowledge and most in tune with nature and wildlife. From my understanding of Shepard, he views hunting, to hunters, as a necessity. It is a way of life and the ultimate means of relating to and connecting with this earth.

I do not hunt and never will hunt, although, I am very intrigued to learn more about this meditative form of hunting that Shepard seems so fond of. I am curious as to how many hunters feel this connection to the earth and to wildlife during their hunt and while consuming their gift of meat. I will conclude with an excerpt from Shepard's chapter, The Significance of Bears. He seems to have a very spiritual connection to the bear and to the hunt. He was only able to feel this deep connection to the animal because he consumed it's flesh. I will be revisiting the Timothy Treadwell documentary film, The Grizzly Man, and taking a look at his connection with grizzly bears among other wildlife as a non-hunter.

"Looking to the bear will not restore me to those distant ancestors who preceded by hundreds of millennia all that negotiation and debasement of the spirit. But it may open my heart and mind to the double gift of the bear as a feast and physician in its role as the killed and renewing deity whose grease, once tasted, is supremely relished over any other "fat of the land," and whose wildness reminds me of my wildness. The bear sustains me yet. The bear gives physical sustenance and spiritual healing. Years ago I had delicious meals of bear meat and I cooked with its fat for many weeks. More recently, in search of health in New Mexico, I entered a native healer's house. In a firelit room he was ready in traditional regalia, surrounded by a rich array of paraphernalia. The ensuing smoke, teas, chants, dances, and songs washed over my senses. As the hours passed I drifted in the nexus between the physical body and the spiritual realm of medicine. I was aware of being embraced by black, hairy arms and hugged with paws with claws. In my ear was an unmistakable snuffling. The twofold gift of the bear was fulfilled." (Shepard, 97)

Behavior, Bears, and Humans

"However, the learning context has changed, albeit unintentionally, and problem behavior has been fostered by the programs of man. In many cases, food-seeking behavior by bears was intentionally rewarded to make them more observable" (e.g., Schullery 1980)

I read the essay, Behavior, Bears, and Humans by Dale R. McCullough where he briefly discusses the grizzly bear and black bear's relationship with humans. McCullough is faculty of the Department of Forestry and Resource Management at the University of California in Berkley. In this essay he looks closely at a bears concept of humans as being equated with food.

In my previous post I had pondered, although not in depth yet, the conflict and questions I had about humans hunting animals. Paul Shepard portrayed hunting as a spiritual necessity. A way to be one with nature and to follows nature's order. I wondered then, why do bears kill humans. I have this idea of the animal instinct and even higher conscience that animals possess. I can say less for some humans. When bears kill humans are they presenting their instinct to keep things in order, to kill because it is their duty as a part of nature? Or are they just hungry? I am sensitive about labeling animal's behavior so generally, such as, the bear killed the human because he must have been hungry. In the same respect, I do not desire to label hunters with such general statements.

I am curious as to how many hunters are hunting purely for the consumption of the animal's flesh. I do not intend for this to be portrayed negatively, as I can imagine that having this relationship with your meal must feel different than if you had bought it as dead flesh in saran-wrapped packing at your local supermarket.

"The major premise that has governed management of bear-human interactions probably has been that bears are conditioned to associate food with humans by feeding on garbage." (McCullough, 28)

According to McCullough, bears associate humans with food. Plain and simple. And because humans invite themselves into bear territory, the scent of humans and their meals is recognizable by bears. They understand that humans have food and getting that food is a reward. Do bears see humans themselves as food?

This is from farebearhunting.org:

"Black bears are not just a prized hunting trophy. Bear provides excellent table fare in steaks, stews, sausage and roasts. Many great bear recipes are listed on this site."

I really would like to interview a few hunters on some of these topics. I am having trouble understanding whether or not the spiritual and ecological reasons for hunting still exist today. In Paul Shepard's, Encounters with Nature, he referred to hunters as those with the absolute "superb mind." Superb mind or appetite?

"In recent years the U.S. National Park Service has launched an education program to convince visitors that bears are dangerous and unpredictable. Equally required in parks where habituated bears have become hazardous to humans is a program to reinforce fear of humans in bears. A relationship based upon fear and respect in both bear and human populations will favor mutual avoidance and, I suggest, a more hopeful prospect of long-term coexistence in parks with a minimum of bloodshed on both sides." (McCullough, 33)

McCullough's essay also touched on the fact that bears do not fear humans. Humans fear bears, but are often very gutsy in their encounters. There is a conflict among park service workers as to whether humans should fear bears or bears should fear humans. Or both. McCullough would rather have bears and humans coexist without bloodshed. Although I have no idea how to make this reality, being respectful of nature might not involve feeding bears and making human food a reward for them. This only taunts them and introduces them to unnatural behaviors. They are capable and perfectly well finding their own food sources. As are we. I do not believe that bears are a necessary part of our diet.

And from here I will further dissect my feelings about feeding the eagles....

Some articles...

Some articles I will be reading in the warmth of the upstairs this evening! Expect a response to these as well. Thank you Google Scholar!

• http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/upload/Selective%20predation.pdf Brown bears selectively kill salmon with higher energy content but
  only in habitats that facilitate choice
  Scott M. Gende, Thomas P. Quinn, Ray Hilborn, Andrew P. Hendry and Bobette Dickerson
• http://209.190.249.61/assets/library/393_s721.pdf - Animals in Children's Lives, Serpell, James.
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/3781798 Behavior, Bears, and Humans. Dale R. McCullough

Questions, conflicts, thought provoking-ness!

In the middle of Paul Shepard's, Encounters with Nature, I found myself struggling to see his point of view regarding hunting. Although, that said, I am learning that for some, hunting is a sort of spiritual experience. It is a way for some to feel closer to nature, to experience life in the only way that matters to them. I have the idea that I might like to interview some hunters for this project. Know any?

I am typing this in a cold basement, the only place where I have internet connection this evening, so to make it easier, I will type a bulleted list of some thoughts. By Thursday I will post a more official written response to Encounters with Nature.

• Hunting as sport? Consumption of meat? Taking pictures of the kill.
• If hunting is part of the natural life cycle and people who hunt are aware of this and are hunting for their own personal, ecological reasons, balancing nature, etc. then why do animals hunt/kill humans? Fear? Excitement? Natural event? Evolutions? Equality?
• What if bears, as often as humans hunted them, came out of the wilderness, walked the city streets, killed a napping person, took a picture, collected them, and then walked back home. Is this not the equivalent of what human hunters do?
• Ways we can but often don't relate to animals.
• What is equality as far as humans and wildlife are concerned? If we are equal or should be or could be...
• Turn animal behavior around and introduce it as human behavior. Trading places - same effect and/or outcome?
• How myths, folklore and children's stories have influenced our view of animals
• p 11 - reducing to elements, p 13 - animals as health of mind, p 21 - children's games
• "The other" as the animal. Who else do we treat as the other? Disabled? Different ethnic groups? Children? Elderly?
• p 59 - How do we confine animals?
• How was Grandma relating to wildlife on a somewhat human level? Naming birds, helping birds, Inviting them to her home
• Learning the language of others
• Dreamlike desire to connect to animals. Influenced by fairytales? Folklore?
• Wild animals stay wild?