So, I guess I will jump off the subtitle of the article: Did American conservationists in Africa go too far? Thoughts on this question or any other issues this article raises?
While on the topic of humans, who feel personal connections with wildlife, an email that was circulated to me a few years back should help lighten the mood on this topic. The email was entitled, "An Incredible Story":
In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from Illinois Wesleyan University.
On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully.
He got down on one knee, inspected the elephant's foot, and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it. As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot. The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments. Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away. Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.
Twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenaged son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over to near where Peter and his son Cameron were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, then put it down. The elephant did that several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.
Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant. Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.
Probably wasn't the same elephant.
In regards to the article, there are a few areas that I would like to question. First is that the national government readily gave Mark Owens overall command of the scouts in the park. With no military background and full authority, set up a scene for disaster. Did they think that since he was white and from America that he was inherently good? And he had to know about the killing of the poachers and that his son had killed one his self. In such a small community of people they were involved with, it is sure that Mark Owens knows who killed that poacher that was filmed.
ReplyDeleteAlso about the email read above, what a tragic story. Peter should have known better then to trust a caged animal. This just shows that man thinks he has conquered the wild, but really has not.
I feel like the American conservationists in this situation did go too far. I can understand having a passion for wildlife and being protective of endangered species and getting angry when you see them being poached, but I don’t think it was the Owens’ place to do everything they did. Especially because I feel like the land wasn’t even theirs to take…they just moved into a national park and claimed it to be theirs and started running businesses in the towns and establishing their own rules. The vigilante-ism and deciding to take over people’s lives was just not something the Owenses should have done. My biggest problem with them, though, is that when confronted about everything, they couldn’t even tell the truth about breaking the law and killing someone. They felt like their operation was so noble, but there’s nothing noble in lying. I also questioned the Owenses motives throughout the article because they were so set on finding places where human being hadn’t touched nature, and then they moved in, brought more people like scouts, and then allowed even more humans to come and make documentaries and whatnot. Bringing people into the area went directly against their desire to find an untouched wilderness. I think that the Owens probably did more harm than good to the environment and societies around them. I really wonder how pure the Owens’ motivations were.
ReplyDeleteAt the very beginning of the article it says that Mark and Delia were “seized by the idea of resettling in remotest Africa”. I was wondering what might motivate someone to do this? Were there cultural or societal dissatisfactions that made people desire to live in untouched wilderness?
Looking at the article, I would say that the American Conservationists, Mark and Delia did go a bit too far in terms of what they should and should not have done with wildlife. It was interesting that they subjugated themselves to living a remote life.. ultimately "one" with the environment observing wildlife in their natural habitat. I think that the idea with trying to solve the problem of poaching in Africa/ Kenya, was a good idea. The issue with poaching for ivory and the endangerment of the elephants was a good issue to make the public more aware. I think that Mark and Delia should have gone out of their way more to contact more head corporations before they took it into their own hands at solving the problem with poaching. (Waiting for the poachers to come and then driving them away) Being interviewed and having themselves broadcasted, and while writing journals and books, the idea of Conserving the environment and the life that lives within it was a good idea.
ReplyDeleteA side note.. I read the E-mail pertaining to the wounded elephant and Peter Davies out-loud to a couple of my friends. It seemed like a great remembrance story until I got to the last paragraph where everyone's moods turned from Aw an elephant never forgets! To silence, everyone was sitting, silent and in shock. It was quite the table-turner story haha.
I found numerous things about the article interesting and thought provoking. As stated already, the authority put into Mark Owens without any substantial credentials seemed a little suspect. The conversationalist for Americans did not show much integrity throughout the entire process and all the events that transpired. When reading, I could not help but continuously feeling like this was another example of American imperialism in another continent. The justifications given for the endeavor were also arguably not quite good enough to carry out what they did and had in mind.
ReplyDeleteEither way it was an interesting read and as far as the article at the title of the blog, wow. I was not expecting such a curt and brutal ending. Nevertheless, what happened was not some outrageous occurrence as far as the elephant goes. The incident Davies had earlier in his life was an anomaly and an extremely rare thing. He was without a doubt pushing his luck by jumping over the rail with the elephants. However, I am sure the first experience was so surreal that it did not seem unlikely to believe something as absurd could happen again. I guess it was not the same elephant.
After reading the article, I think the American conservationists in Africa over time crossed the line, but from their perspective, they were trying to preserve the elephant that was being killed for its ivory.Africans were killing elephants because there was such a high demand for their ivory tusks and no other means of making money. It is really hard for the American conservationists to convince Africans that it is important to save elephants, because Africans do not make money if the elephants are alive. The Zambian government was not supporting the efforts to protect the elephants, because ivory was such a lucrative business.Mark Owens did try to support many of the park guards financially with funds provided from the United States, but once he left the country the guards were not able to provide food for their families and would begin to assist poachers. The Owens had been in Botswana, but was made to leave, so the Owens went to Zambia. “In 1979, there were about a million three hundred thousand elephants in Africa; ten years later, the population had fallen by half.” (4) Some African countries had instituted a “shoot-to-kill policy”, but this was not the case in Zambia. The Owens liked the Luangwa Park because of its isolation, but so did the poachers.
ReplyDeleteVieira asks, “Do you feel that sometimes an animal’s life is worth more than a human’s life?”
Owens answers, “Worth more to whom? The elephant or the person? Ask the elephant. And ask the human. You’ll get two different answers.” In a voice-over, Vieira says, “Mark Owens calls it a ‘hardening of the human spirit,’ the ultimate price he has paid to work here.” The film returns to Owens, who says, “It’s a very dirty game. It’s a measure of the desperation of the situation, I think.”(10)To me,his statement acknowledges the hard facts and the desperation felt on both sides. Elephant’s ivory had become a commodity and killing humans was not going to change the situation. I think when Owens gave orders to shoot-to-kill poachers are when he went too far.
(Hey guys--sidenote; the email I posted is a fictional story, not meant to be real, just funny. so i hope no one thought i was finding pleasure in the misfortune of the zoo patron).
ReplyDeleteMark and Delia Owens did not take a good approach in their conservation attempts. They did not consider that the people themselves - including poachers - are all a part of a particular environment. Poaching is very harmful to endangered species, but killing them is not going to solve the problem. In order to improve a particular environment, you have to understand it and then tell the people living there about the benefits of conservation. Simply taking over an area and interfering in everyone's life is not an effective way to implement or advocate for conservation. This couple had good intentions, but they were blindly focused on helping elephants and did not think of anything else or take time to understand other points of view. As the story above shows, nature is full of the unexpected and we cannot control it.
ReplyDeleteI didn't understand why the government gave Mark Owens command over the parks and the scouts if he had no prior experience with the military or any other training for that matter. It seems like they just based it off of judgments rather than actual experience which seems very careless. Vigilantism is a noble ideal in some ways, like Batman, but at the same time there is an extent to which people can go, especially without training. Since the Owens' didn't have training they cannot justify killing someone with "protecting the wildlife" and then go ahead and lie about it. Though their motivations are noble it still doesn't give them the authority to poach the poachers.
ReplyDeleteAs for the email, I could understand why he would think it was the same elephant and I'm sure it probably was but to approach a caged animal that is probably not too thrilled about being caged is quite stupid.
After reading this article, I have to conclude that American conservationists did go too far. Americans have always culturally felt an ability and authority to invade new areas for their own gains, occasionally using the excuse that it benefits that country. In the case of the African elephant, I believe that the Owens went in with benevolent intentions, but soon learned that they could take as much power as they wanted. Their reliance on violent threats and turn to vigilante justice shows their assumed roles in this environment. Considering the Owens' gave their scouts weapons and trained them in martial arts, their motivations had clearly shifted from when their first arrived in Africa.
ReplyDeleteThis article questions the amount of violence that is appropriate to save threatened and endangered species. It is one debate how to handle two competing animal species and subsequent lower populations. It is another one entirely to decide whether humans should attempt to injure or kill other humans over animal species.
I definitely American conservationist went to far in this case and this article made me really mad at the Owens and there conservation efforts.
ReplyDeleteI think that charity and conservation is a new form of imperialism. Americans feel as if like have the right to go into less developed countries (especially Africa) and that inevitably all of their actions will be inherently good because they are white, educated, and have good intentions. This is not true at all, and I would argue that many times it does more harm than good. The Owens felt like they had complete ownership of the land and could do whatever they thought would be good for the elephants and completely ignored their impacts on the village. Conservation includes a human aspect to it as well as the environment. The Owens approach definitely valued the wildlife over humans. Owens seemed to pride themselves on the good they were doing to the village and said they were bringing in jobs, some education and money to them and their families. Yet poachers also have families and they completely denied that by killing the poachers they are killing a member of that community and their families are left with out a source of income to feed themselves with.
As for the email post I definitely think that as a society we feel as if wildlife is no longer a serious threat to us and that mind set is a pretty harmful one.
I think that the Owens went way too far in their efforts to save the elephants. However, it is understandable how easy it was to go over the edge and start using more questionable methods of conservation. Why the Owens went into Africa in the first place was admirable, but their mission soon become something that borderlined on hypocritical. If they valued the lives of the animals so much, how could they be so careless about the lives of the poachers? Its taking away a life to save another life, which becomes an ethical conflict. Although it must have been easy to get out of hand with such minimal restrictions and supervisions, they have to claim responsibility for their actions. However, I do understand that if you care about something so much, its very easy to not become unable to stop yourself from going overboard.
ReplyDeleteI certainly think that the American conservationists got carried away. Although moving to the remotest part of Africa in order to study and better understand the animals was radical but still held some benefits. But I don't see how taking the serious and widespread issue of poaching seemed like an effective approach. Owens should have known that he could not personally solve the poaching problem, in fact his methods only spread and escalated violence. It was a very short sighted solution to the problem and a more effective approach would have been to change the attitudes of policy makers so that it could actually have a lasting impact. Killing people is in no way effective in preventing poachers because inevitably more will come and lives are still lost. Also I thought it was interesting that the Owens' wanted so badly to live in an Eden like Africa unspoiled but the complications of humans and yet how could they be so sure they wouldn't bring about these same negative complications themselves?
ReplyDeleteI think that the Owenses’ tactics were justified given the circumstances. In another context, their actions would be completely out of line. The situation in Zambia, however, lent itself to the vigilante style of the Owenses. Zambia’s government failed to maintain adequate stability and order for the area under its control. This relative lawlessness meant that people like the Owenses could exert greater local authority, or, conversely, allows poachers to operate. Conducting Rambo-type paramilitary operations would be completely unacceptable in the U.S., but they could pass in Africa. The Owenses encountered problems because their exploits were broadcasted in the U.S. This airing gave Americans the opportunity to impose their own, distinct values onto a totally different culture and situation in Africa. To sum up, there is a time and place for everything.
ReplyDeleteWhat I did not understand about this article is that does Mark Owens think that elephant's are above humans? It was pretty shocking to read that. The Owens' went too far in protecting the elephants. It was disturbing to read that they encourage scouts to assassinate poachers. I don't condone poachers murdering a surfeit of animals, but it's a business. I know that comment will draw a lot of controversy, but since I hunt occasionally, I do not mind people hunting the right way. I applaud the Owens defending the elephants, but they did indeed go way too far. I am not sure if you can call them conservationists, but you can call them murderers. This article was pretty disturbing to read, and this does bring controversy whether humans should kill other humans to save animals.
ReplyDeleteMy last post in regards to the email posted was cut off. I just don't understand why a human would climb over the railing and see if that was the elephant that he cured. The story started off to be a good story, but it gets very depressing at the end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the article I feel that the conservationists had gone too far. But in a way it kind of reminds me about when we talked about Hornaday and how serious he took animal conservation. When I read over the article I can't help but feel like maybe Hornaday would have acted the same way when dealing with poachers. I don't know if he would have been as intense as Owens but I still feel like he would have tried to stop the poachers in some crazy way.
ReplyDeleteMarks and Delia Owens’s story for the most part feels it is heavily fixated on circumstantial evidence and hearsay. I do not think we will ever know exactly what was really going on with “Dangerous Game”. However the outcome of it clearly shows that while we as humans allow the killing of animals for survival as well as sport, we wind the killing of humans sick and distasteful. This article was interesting from the stand point that I have lived on a farm for the majority of my life and those who manage the farm have killed animals that are seen as a threat. The Owens’s clearly viewed these poachers as a threat to the park's livelihood, but to treat them like we treat animals we consider as pest is extreme. On the other hand how else could they have handled the situation were the government clearly did not want to help them police the park? I found the cherry bomb tactics to a funny and less harmful way to deal with the trespassing poachers. If we are to believe the evidence presented to us in the article at one point did Mark Owen switch from cherry bomb scare tactics to ‘shoot to kill’? Also was the Owens’s treatment of the poachers in any way shape or form a racial issue, or was it because they decided the only way to handle the situation and save the park was to take the role of a vigilante or something else entirely?
ReplyDeleteAs for the killing of the poacher ... well ... sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted. As for the Owenses, I feel that they started to develop a messianic complex in regards to their "noble" crusade, never stopping to put themselves in the shoes of poverty stricken Africans who might not mind some dead animals if it means putting food in their stomach and the raising of their overall standard of living.
ReplyDeleteThe Owenses are quoted as saying, I believe on page 6 or 7, something in regards to ' if the inhabitants wouldn't poach off their wildlife Americans would come to visit, which would create them great wealth. I find this absurd: for one Americans aren't flocking to Africa, and even if they did the Owenses couldn't guarantee its overall success. So what kind of ego trip is this.
I think the Owens got a little carried away; they simply intervened too much. Some of their moves were positive, for instance they pleaded with government officials to protect the animals from poaching—even though their pleas were rejected, this was a less invasive and probably more logical approach to the issue with out taking it too far. People will simply never understand nature completely and to take these matters into their own hands is completely illogical and elitist! Also the encouragement of scouts to assassinate poachers, or basically saying murder is okay when it comes to saving wildlife is going too far and simply contradictory. However, I think their open aggression towards these poachers could have also been a racial issue—they (most likely) believed they were superior whites cleaning up the messes in Africa.
ReplyDeleteI went on the National Geographic website today and I found an article that really related to our class discussions of the urgency to travel to certain environments and the conflict of ecotourism and parks. There is also a link to all of the vintage posters that we looked at in class from the Federal Arts Program.
ReplyDeleteand
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/today/
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/national-parks/vintage-posters/