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.