Pages

Saturday, December 1, 2007

A different kind of animal lover

This friend of mine wanted to set me up with a guy she thought I might like. A cute Midwesterner with a great sense of a humor and a sweet “aw shucks” demeanor but, she stalled; there’s something else. She laughed nervously and a slew of dreadful attributes ran through my brain: he used to date men, he’s terrible in the sack, or he has a psycho ex-wife and two kids. “He’s a hunter,” she said, waiting for the vegetarian’s horrified reaction. “Oh!” I said, “I have no problem with hunters.”

I actually, weirdly, have a lot of respect for them. The main reason that I’m vegetarian is as a protest against factory farming and the cruelty and disgusting toxicity associated with the commercial raising of animals, the over fishing of the oceans and reckless destruction of nature in pursuit of profits. The second reason is because I love animals and think that anyone who eats meat should be able to raise it, kill it and prepare it. I couldn’t. With our level of technological development, we have the ability to eat better than any generation prior. I am vegetarian because I have a choice.

I surprise even myself sometimes with my seemingly contradictory beliefs. I’m part of what's referred to in Applebee’s America as the Tipping Tribe because I hold mixed beliefs. Take the quiz for yourself! But I had this conversation years ago with a guy who bow-hunted elk. He described to me how difficult it is to do, and the passion for hunting required to do it successfully impressed me. While these hunters might mount the head of their kill on their wall, they also eat nearly the entire animal. They’re connected at the purest level to the value of the animal’s life, experiencing where food comes from more than other meat eaters. They are aware of the seasons and our affect on nature and the populations of the animals they hunt. Compare that to the person eating a McDonald’s cheeseburger for lunch everyday because it’s cheap and easy, with no awareness of the low quality of meat they’re eating and of the kind of life that animal had before becoming their meal.

Of course there are people who shoot animals for fun or kill animals in cruel ways for sport, but I think of a hunter as someone closer to nature than most of the population, someone with the discipline to track an animal for days at a time and with a love of animals that while different from mine, is no less strong. In this month’s National Geographic, an article describes how the conservation of public land is in jeopardy partly because of the lack of the new generation's interest in and appreciation for hunting. You see, hunters contribute billions of dollars, to ensure the preservation of natural lands and help maintain a balance in species when other human factors cause them to go out of whack.

I knew that Theodore Roosevelt dedicated millions of acres of land in his presidency as National Parks but didn't know he was inspired by a hunting trip to Yellowstone. He believed it was critical to ensure the future of the magnificent animals he liked to hunt. Today, Yellowstone is still home to bison, grizzlies, wolves, bighorn sheep, mountain lions, bobcats and moose and hunters have always played a role in maintaining the balance of these populations. Now how could I have a problem with that? It goes back to the fact that I tend to look at things as a whole and the world is messy, it isn't black and white. It's like my views on PETA. Someone needs to have the laser focus they have in protecting animals because that's how things get done, but it's the sum of the parts that makes the world go round.

5 comments:

Jim Macdonald said...

I see so many blogs say this and so many others think this - even a former employee at the Interior Department - but Teddy Roosevelt did not found Yellowstone in 1872. That happened when Grant was President. He had nothing to do with the founding of the park system (Wilson was president in 1916). He didn't found what became the national forest around Yellowstone, either (Benjamin Harrison was President).

He was a hunter; that much is true. And, he did visit Yellowstone with some of his hunting buddies.

I've never been able to track down where people got this wrong idea that's become so popular about Roosevelt founding Yellowstone.

Anyhow, cheers. Interesting post.

Jim

Angelique Little said...

Jim, thanks for the info! You're right, Grant was President in 1872 and established Yellowstone as a National Park. It must be because Roosevelt was such a proponent of establishing National Parks in his presidency, and dedicated the arch in Yellowstone, that he is so heavily associated with it. I'm amazed that I've been misinformed for so long! I saw this Thomas Moran exhibit in Seattle in 1998 and was so awe-struck I immediately planned a trip to Yellowstone. I drove through gorgeous Montana and spent a week camping in the park which is still one of the best experiences of my life. The National Geographic article refers to Roosevelt as "a founding father of America's conservation movement" and credits his trip to Yellowstone with the inspiration to dedicate OTHER land as national park. I'll correct the blog post so as not to further misinform! Thanks for reading.

Jim Macdonald said...

Hi there.

I'm glad you are correcting the post, but you might be surprised that my disdain for Teddy Roosevelt goes much further still, and I think it is relevant to your post about hunters. I wrote a very long set of essays recently on Teddy, myths, and Yellowstone on my blog. (first part is here). I doubt I would correct people if I didn't have fundamental problems with the way we remember Teddy Roosevelt and what that means for us today.

And to that point, I think it relates to your support of hunters as preservationists of a sort. When the government and hunters like Roosevelt (though more commonly people known as market hunters) killed off the huge buffalo herds in the 1870s, they suddenly got religion when they realized that had obliterated a lot of the way of life they were growing to love. But, to a man, especially Roosevelt, they all thought the genocide of Native Americans via the buffalo slaughter was necessary policy. They simply wanted to retain something of the "manhood" many thought was starting to slip away from American society. That's why early wildlife groups, like those protecting buffalo, tended to be big game hunters, almost exclusively male, and wealthy. I guess we could say it would have been worse if they didn't suddenly want to protect any animals, but the way that these animals have been protected has led some wildlife thinkers to suggest that buffalo really is extinct and what we are left with is a domesticated byproduct, a brand new animal.

In any event, it's complicated. Often, when hunters protect animals, they do so at the expense of other animals (take the way that hunters protect the elk they hunt in Wyoming by feeding them - so as to keep their numbers artificially high). At the same time, they rail against wolves and deny the ecological impact that super high numbers of elk have on other animals (for example, beaver).

So, to the contrary, the Roosevelts, the hunters, though they have been involved in preserving animals, I think their practice has actually shown me just how much more dispicable a group sports hunters are (and I'm not convinced that subsistence hunting is really actually in practice in civilized society, a society that hunting ironically paved the way for).

On the other hand, when indigenous people go on hunts, then I have a different view on the enterprise. There is something different in those hunts. When the Nez Perces hunt buffalo outside of Yellowstone they do so simultaneously with a call that bison expand their range.

Anyhow, I'm rambling. I do really like what you've written because it questions common assumptions and moves the discussion to a new and exciting level. I don't agree, but it's inspiring and passionate all the same.

I tend to be the same way.

Take care,
Thanks for getting a rise out of me,
Jim

Angelique Little said...

Thank you for sharing! This is exactly the reason I started the blog. To have a place where I could ponder and question things that don't make sense to me (and to be fair, most things don't make sense), even things that I feel and believe, and to have others who have experienced the same or thought about it much more than I have, share their beliefs.

Your blog post is fascinating and reminds me of being an outsider in Women's Studies. One of the best students in the department but despised by my peers for questioning the theories. I also love your Joy of Conflict post about your son. It's a beautiful and eloquent version of the thought I had a few posts ago and is very helpful. Thank you!

Jim Macdonald said...

Thanks, I deeply appreciate the kind words.

If you ever want to bump thoughts my way, be sure to send an email.

I have a lot of conflicted thoughts about a lot of things; I embrace that tension in life greatly. The dynamism of a truth which never changes leads me to sulfur pools which stink in the most perfect of evenings.

Even so, we have to be careful when we mix strange bedfellows - Roosevelt the conservationist and Roosevelt the hunter aren't symbiotic; they suggest to me different resonances. But, then again, I'm suspicious of almost anyone who has ever held any position of power in human history. We have heard too much from us who wield swords and pens so well. And, that creates its own ironies and tensions, no?

Take care,
Jim