 |
| The Owens in Zambia, circa late 1970s. |
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
AS.100.369: Wildlife Protection in the Era of Decolonization
So I guess I'll pigging back onto the subtitle of the Goldberg article: In the particular case of this American couple, the Owens, do you think these conservationists went too far? What social, cultural, or ideological factors might have motivated them? Was Russell Train's approach different? Does Train or the Owens have anything in common with Teddy Roosevelt generations earlier? Thoughts? (don't feel like you have to answer all of these questions, but maybe we can hit on all of them in discussion)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would argue that Mark and Delia Owens absolutely went too far in their conservation efforts. Although their attempts at controlling the poaching situation in Zambia were rooted in a fervent desire to protect the wildlife of the region, the Owenses were also prone to racial generalizations that led to misguided and sometimes violent treatment of the Zambian people. The Owenses viewed the native Africans as simple and ignorant. Delia tells the story of Mark delivering a soccer ball to the native village of Chishala, in which she states, “It falls among the young men and children, and a game begins on the spot.” This quote suggests that the Owenses viewed the African people as both naïve and easily manipulated. Mark Owens, perhaps because he did not trust the African scouts as autonomous workers, appointed himself as their leader.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the author of the article, Jeffrey Goldberg, notes, “The Owenses writings on occasion convey archaic ideas about Africans.” In “The Eye of the Elephant,” Delia Owens wrote of her conversations with their cook, Sunday Justice, and it is clear that she treats him as though he was a small child. It seems that an oversimplification of the African people led to incorrect assumptions about African “poachers.” On the one hand, the Owenses understood that the poaching of large game animals such as elephants was integral to the survival of many of the Zambian natives. But on the other hand, it is as if the Owenses believed that they could instantly change the habits of the native people. Mark Owens seemed to loose sight of the fact that many of the black “poachers” did so out of necessity, that hunting large animals in Zambia was a means of subsistence for local native peoples. In his letter to P.J. Fouche, Mark boasted, “Two poachers have been killed and one wounded that I know of thus far, and we are just getting started.” This quote signifies that by the time he had turned to radical measures as a means of protecting the wildlife and subduing the poaching problem, Mark Owens had lost sight of the various tensions motivating the poachers. The poachers were merely seen as threats to his wildlife that must be destroyed.
Unlike the Owenses, Russell Train recognized the value of African autonomy when it came to managing and preserving the wildlife. He set up scholarships to send Africans to America to study wildlife management. He seemed to understand the complex colonial societies from which these new African nations stemmed. He wrote that “Under colonial rule, game-viewing and legal hunting were reserved for whites.” He also seems to have a much more well-rounded understanding of the African people than the Owenses, writing, “the native Kenyans were a very diverse lot, made up of many tribes and different cultures that did not lend themselves to generalization.” While the Owenses promoted wildlife protection through guerilla tactics and total control, Train proposed instead to offer formal educational training to the Africans so that they might be able to autonomously administer and protect African wildlife reserves.
If the evidence that Goldberg presents in his 2010 article, "The Hunted," is valid, then yes, I believe the Owens went too far. Although the Owens denied their role in the shooting of poachers and Mark Owen denied his role as commander of the scouts who killed the poachers, the evidence is against them. In interviews, Mark seemed to carry no guilt for the scouts killing poachers and even called one killing the "messy reality." This seems a bit extreme, especially from a conservationist viewpoint, which I often see as peaceful and conflict resolving. It is unfortunate that such passionate and well-intentioned conservationists would get over-zealous in their attempts to save the wildlife because it may limit abilities of researchers in future wildlife protection strategies. I think their profound attachment to wildlife created through their experiences of living with nature drove a spiritual and emotional attachment to the wildlife. If anyone threatened this connection, such as poachers, they were threatening their spirits! This gave the Owens the motivation necessary to support the ruthless campaign against poachers.
ReplyDeleteThe Goldberg article was a bit paradoxical in that it seemed to support the Owenses at the beginning, and then turn and provide evidence against the Owenses towards the end--it seemed a bit like he said she said. What most convinces me that the Owenses went too far is that their drive for power in Idaho, where they claimed a public road as their land and named it "Thunder Mountain Ranch" mirrored their drive for power in Africa, where they believed they owned the land and the scouts. Although I believe they started out with good intention, its clear that they became obsessed with stopping the poachers towards the end of their journey. There is evidence that Mark Owen was becoming a bit crazy, such as when he stated that North Luangwa reminded him "a little bit of Vietnam," although he was not a veteran nor had he ever served in the U.S. military. As Hugo van der Westhuizen stated at the end of the article, he had to tell the scouts to stop saluting him--showing that Mark Owens had definitely treated the scouts as subordinates, and considered himself their combat leader. It is also clear that Mark Owens's son was violent and aggressive, with reports from scouts claiming that he beat them and they feared him greatly. Although the Owenses deeply cared about saving the elephants and other wildlife of Northern Luangwa, it got to the point where one Chief stated "the man has an illness. He loves animals more than he loves people." Mark Owens misunderstood the Africans, and especially the African poachers. As we learned in lecture today, many white Americans and Europeans assumed that all African hunters were poachers, leading to many misconceptions about their intelligence and degree of caring or understanding the importance of the conservation of African wildlife. I also noticed that the Owenses turned their book into something of a love story, which seems a bit like a gimmick to get funds for their private agendas.
ReplyDeleteTrain, on the the hand, never wanted to own Africa--he loved Africa. Train understood that the Africans weren't unintelligent, they were simply not concerned with poaching because "the revenues from such hunting had never accrued to the local communities but instead had gone to outside safari firms and to a distant government." Train aimed to tie local communities to profits from legal hunting, because he understood that this would lead to the natives working to prevent poachers because it would give them a reason to care. Train was intelligent in his conservation efforts, and understood that not all hunting is bad--in fact, he was a hunter himself. He saw conservation in a much more balanced way, versus the extremist conservation of the Owenses.
After reading the article on the Owenses, it seems as though they probably went too far; however, I certainly don't think they meant to. When I started the reading I was on the couple's side completely and it seemed to me that their efforts were admirable. They were these selfless people that left the comforts of the industrialized world to set up camp in wilderness untainted by human influence and protect these animals first hand. As I continued the article, however, evidence began to accumulate disclosing the controversial actions of the Oweneses. I think the moral question of the article was summarized adequately by Meredith Vieira when she asks Mark in the ABC documentary Deadly Game, “Do you feel that sometimes an animal’s life is worth more than a human’s life?” Although Mark never directly answers this question on camera, the actions the article accuses him of taking certainly indicate that his answer could be yes. However, I think it is important to remember that there are a lot of different versions of the Owenses’ story, and although some seem to have more bias than others, we cannot say with complete certainty that his actions against poachers were driven fundamentally by malicious intent. While I do believe that Mark’s son probably did kill the unidentified poacher showcased in the documentary, I do not feel as though this single event defined all of the practices carried out by the Owenses in Africa. From all the effort they took to cover it up, it is clear that they did not approve of Christopher’s knee jerk reaction. Nevertheless, it is likely the Owenses, so emotionally invested in their operations, living in Africa and dealing with the confrontations first hand, let their confrontations go too far. Today, they have distant perspective on their actions. They may now realize that, despite the fact that their stance against poaching came from the right place, the way they tried to achieve it could have been more diplomatic and peaceful.
ReplyDeleteI was much more pleased to read about the approach that Russell Train took, trying to sustain local ecology in Africa. Rather than directly imposing his will on the African people, he chose to educate them. The most fundamental problem facing the natural environment in Africa was that the native people were not aware of its value. As we discussed in class today, Africans only thought of wild ecology as something that got in the way of their livelihood. However, at Train’s College of African Wildlife Management, these local populations were enabled with the autonomous power of knowledge. Instead of refraining from poaching for fear of fatal consequences, these educated Africans had the desire to sustain animal populations for economical and ecological interests of their own. Not only was this choice of action less violent, but I also believe it was fundamentally more effective. Knowledge is the most powerful entity on this planet. Before local African populations were able to see the value of American interests, they could have understood them as being driven by exceptionalist imperialistic motives. Once they were able to understand the value of preserving ecology, they had a greater desire to do so.
The Owenses went too far in their conservation effort. While their intentions were good, I think the combination of frustration and not being around other humans for a long period of time led them to go to too extreme measures. At first their methods were rational. They tried to systematically undermine the poachers by employing those who would normally help them. However, that turned in to recruiting scouts to essentially murder the poachers.
ReplyDeleteFor me the greatest contradiction is that Owens claims to have a love of life in general yet he nearly killed himself, destroyed his relationship with his wife, who was the only other human with whom he interacted, and facilitated the murder of poachers. All to save the animals. I think Viera raised a big point when she asked him, “Do you feel that sometimes an animals life is worth more than a humans life?” Regardless of the answer, I believe that the murdering of people over a cultural difference is wrong.
This may be unrelated but it reminds me of the show whale wars, when the Australian men kill the Japanese men with any means necessary because they feel the need to conserve the whale population against those who hunt them. At a certain point, conservation efforts should be turned back to the methods of Train.
Train chose to educate the Africans both locally and in America at universities on the methods of wildlife management. Education is the best way to convince the local population that should agree. As we discussed in class yesterday, this is increasingly true with the decolonization, westerners were less able to enforce conservationism on the local population and it became more necessary to enable and educate the local population until they wanted to be a part of the conservationism movement. I think the frustration of this system got to the Owens and because they felt a sense of urgency, they were pushed to go too far.
I believe the Owenses went too far. I believe that their efforts were initially for a good cause, but went out of control. It seems like they became used to their power and may have intentionally or unintentionally exploited it. The Harvey family saw them as “self-aggrandizers” and said that the Owenses “‘were set on making it seem as if they were the first white people in the park’” (14). Others have said that “they believed so fervently in the righteousness of their cause that they were able to dismiss all criticism” (27). Several times in the article, the Owens seemed self-absorbed in their work. For instance, when Mark Owens intentionally backfired the plane and used firecrackers in order to scare away the hunters, I thought, isn’t that frightening the animals themselves too? The Owenses seemed to think that most of the Africans were all for poaching. But in both articles, it has been mentioned that hunters often “shot for the pot,” killing animals to provide for their families. It was often not for poaching reasons but for subsistence. Furthermore, they practiced religious rituals as well, because the land was connected to their ancestors. The bottom line was that it was not all about poaching and bad intentions, but the Owenses made it seem like that. However, all of this was not entirely the Owenses’ fault. There was little order, few scouts, and little support from the government. In other words, there was no one who would take the reins and help protect the animals. The Owenses were clearly willing to take the lead and the Africans did appreciate that. Many supported him and would salute him. If you think about it, yes, this can be negative, but at the same time, they saw Mark Owens as someone who was helping them in terms of saving the elephants. I want to point out that when a former employee of the Owenses called him “Dad,” it is not a strange thing. For example, my family has been financially helping an African family in Kenya in terms of education, and they call my father “Dad” when they speak to him on the phone or write to him – it is a sign of respect in their culture.
ReplyDeleteI want to point out that I think Delia Owens had good intentions and hers were similar to that of Russell Train. They both seemed to look at the larger picture. The Owenses did provide economic incentives – in exchange for economic aid, the villagers would promise to curtail poaching. Delia argued, “we should supply them with good equipment and encouragement, but we should not personally go after the poachers, for then they will come after us” (6). Although she was concerned for her safety, she did not want to get involved directly because it was not their business. However, Mark wanted to lead the scouts himself. After issues and the controversy began to rise, Delia said to Mark, “you’re the one who’s helped the scouts reach the point where they’re capable to go in there” (13). Russell Train was not like Mark Owens – he did not want to take an active role himself, but rather, he wanted to help the Africans indirectly: “we decided that the most important wildlife conservation task in Africa was to help Africans equip themselves with the knowledge and skills that would enable them to manage their own wildlife resources, to run game departments and national parks” (41). This led to Train and the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation providing funds and education to help Africans develop the capacity to manage their own wildlife resources.
When reading about the Owens move to Africa, I initially wondered about their credentials as researchers. Their methods seemed unorthodox, but their interest in fieldwork was sincere. I am mostly troubled by the change in their actions. They seemed out of touch with humanity after conducting research in remote areas for years, and perhaps this lack of understanding could explain why they seemed to sympathize more with nature and the animals than with human beings. Train brought up a good point that “whether tolerant or intolerant of wildlife, few Africans were ‘nature lovers’. People living on the edge of survival seldom are” (page 40). This idea can simplify the motives of many poachers, and the Owens failed to view the situation from that of an African struggling to survive.
ReplyDeleteTrain’s hunting and safari experiences allowed him to gain a perspective that encompassed both sides of the picture. He noted that “there was a good deal of naiveté in all this and we doubtless were exposed to very little of the reality of modern Africa—all too often characterized by poverty, disease, political tyranny, corruption, and overpopulation” (page 34). Upon realizing this, Train could better understand how to save the “old Africa” he loved by creating peace with modern Africa. I think the main principle Train argued was that if a country eliminates all hunting practices but fails to channel efforts into wildlife protection, the community has no need for this resource. With no incentive to protect nature, whether for tourism or other economical purposes, poachers will run rampant. Having a clear goal allowed Train to yield better results than the Owens and through more appropriate methods.
Assuming the facts in the Goldberg article are true, there seems little question that the Owens went too far in their efforts to preserve wildlife. They appear to have been quite sincere at first, and genuinely enamored of the wild animals they set out to help. In this respect, they were much like Theodore Roosevelt, who clearly admired African animal life. I was also immediately struck by the similarity of the Owens' attitude toward Africans (as presented by Goldberg) and Roosevelt's own description in African Game Trails. The Owens described their neighbors as "a few bands of Stone Age Bushmen." Mark Harvey, a descendant of English colonial settlers who knew them described them in this way: "Their whole attitude was 'Nice continent. Pity about the Africans.'" Delia Owens' description of her cook and the couple's exchanges with local children are very patronizing. This is reminiscent of Roosevelt's description of local Africans as "wild pagans." There is no sign that Owens respected the local population or its attitude and customs toward animals. They seemed to assume they were either poachers or could be enticed with toys (such as soccer balls) to fight (and it appears in the article, to kill) poachers. The Owens saw themselves as above the law, and apparently as the sole protector of African wildlife. This, too, reminds one of Roosevelt's presentation of whites as the preserver of African nature. In both cases, the whites deemed themselves above local law, culture and custom and the embodiment of higher values that the native population could not understand.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, Russell Train's safaris sounded much like Roosevelt's. Train also liked to hunt, and went on safari in relative comfort with many African attendants. Yet unlike the Owens' attitude toward animal conservation and local custom, Train appears to respect the ability of Africans to equip "themselves with the knowledge and skills that would enable them to manage their own wildlife resources, to run game departments and national parks." He ascribes the African lack of initial interest to the influence of colonial rule, where "game-viewing and legal hunting were reserved, in practice, for whites." "Even if other forces had not been at work," he notes, "it is small wonder that that the average African had little interest in wildlife conservation." Because of his energetic efforts, he established a network of African collaborators intent on African wildlife conservation, a far cry from the Owens who apparently fled the country to avoid being arrested in connection with the murder of a alleged poacher.
In response to the previous blog posts, I do not want validate the Owens’ treatment of local Africans, and even militaristic plight against poaching. However, I do want to highlight some of the potential motivations behind their behaviors. In an article, Mark Owens described their dreamlike existence in the Kalahari prior to encountering poachers, saying, “we land in the grass, most likely in a place never visited by modern man, and sleep in the open under the wing… Knowing that no one on Earth knows where we are, or could ever find us, we feel special, as if we are the only two people in the universe.” Considering the Owens’ free and independent lifestyle in the African environment, where they could truly be one with nature and live among the wildlife without harming it, it is easy to imagine their anger upon discovering poachers. They spent months studying the wildlife closely, even becoming accepted into some packs of some animals, so it is not surprising that the Owens felt a very personal and emotional offense at the actions of poachers. They imagined that they were free from society, free from the situational factors of civilization that motivate people to destroy wildlife. However, their lifestyle was merely a mirage. They were in fact deeply entrenched in society, and could never separate their existence from other human beings who survived off of the land.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the Owen’s went too far in their efforts for conservation. In the beginning the article seemed to support the Owens’ and their efforts, talking of their love of nature, their isolation, their survival techniques and their data collection methods. It gave ample evidence for the destruction the poachers were causing (the elephant bone yard, the animals’ general skittishness towards humans, etc) But as the article goes on, it details the Owens’ tactics for conservation and you can see them slowly get more and more obsessed and delusional. My first encounter with this was when the article detailed Mark Owens “skirmish” with the poachers in his reserve. While they were firing AK-47’s at him and his scout, he said he was merely firing “harmless” cherry bombs at the poacher’s camp and tents. He seemed to justify the fact that he set the poachers tent on fire by the fact he was getting shot at by them, yet he did not even know if anybody was in the tent he had just set flame to. Also, Cherry Bombs are not exactly harmless, they were banned in the United States in 1966 because too many children were getting injured from them, they were used in the civil war to stun/harm soldiers, and are considered to be in the same category as M-80s by the Child Safety Act of 1966. Another example of Owens going too far is when he came under investigation for the murder of several poachers. While it was never explicitly said whether he had a hand in any of the poachers deaths it was certainly implied. The article even hinted at the fact that the local villagers were all afraid of Mark Owens’ Scout Patrolmen, who were taught hand-to-hand combat by Owens supposedly violent son. All these facts, and more, presented in the article definitely made me think Owens went too far, a man who is willing to shoot supposedly “harmless” explosives (which are banned in the US due to safety hazards) at poachers, and under investigation for murder is definitely taking it too far in my book.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the Goldberg article I actually found Mark and Delia Owens likable and admirable. They seemed to be deeply invested in the preservation of the wildlife and animals on the safari, and they dedicated their lives to this work. Although they may have been misinformed and somewhat racially biased, they seemed to genuinely care about the well-being of the African people as well as the animals. On one occasion Delia said, "Imagine us walking into these primitive villages where the children are hungry, and saying: ‘If you stop shooting wild animals, tourists from America will come, and you’ll have jobs and food.’ We thought they’d look at us like we were crazy. But they’ve caught on."
ReplyDeleteAs the article progressed, the radical beliefs of the Owenses became more apparent. The war that they waged on the poachers was both out of the realm of the kind of action they should have been taking, and was much more extreme and violent than it ever should have been. When Mark describes some of his interactions with the poachers he sounds radical and actually a little bit crazy to have been taking such serious action against these people. He recalls one occasion on which he and his assistant attacked a camp of poachers: "...and it blew up and it blew burning embers into Mutondo’s nice new tent. And it went up in a sheet of flame. And there were a few more exchanges of gunfire, him shooting at me with an AK and us shooting back with firecrackers. But they eventually dropped everything and took off like rats. And this was so successful that we went on to raid other camps with firecrackers that night and for many nights after that." This description highlights the intensity of the interactions between white Americans and Europeans who placed themselves in the African safari and some of the African people who used the wildlife to make a profit through poaching. Regardless of the actions of the poachers, however, the reactions of the Owenses and other people like them were much too extreme and probably proved to be more detrimental than effective.
With respect to Russell Train's experiences with the Safari, he held a much firmer belief in the competency of the African people themselves, and their ability to manage and conserve their own wildlife. Train's contribution to preserving African wildlife came in a much more reasonable and rational form through the establishment of the College of African Wildlife Management, and I think that because he wasn't as much of a radical as Mark Owens and other extreme conservationists, he was able to have a much greater and longer lasting impact.
I think that Trains have similar idea of the African safari as did Teddy Roosevelt, both the Trains and Roosevelt went on safaris to go on “wonderful adventure[s] in wild, remote country” and felt that the experience was similar to “that of a first love, can never be duplicated.” Both Roosevelt and the Trains toured Africa with local African men helping them. Both expeditions were conducted “in the name of science” and had a collecting aspect to them. The Trains “loved every minute of those safari…enthralled by the strangeness and beauty around [them]” this appreciation for the safari is similar to the appreciation that Teddy Roosevelt felt for the safari, he felt that he was reconnecting with his manliness. However, the Trains were not as naïve as Roosevelt and understood that they were not being exposed to the actual reality of modern Africa.
ReplyDeleteThe Owen’s went to far in the way in which they dealt with the poachers. There was no reason to create a bounty-like system of capturing the poachers. There was no need to blow up the poachers’ campfires and there was no need for Mark to tell the scouts to shoot at poachers before they even shot at the scouts. Making the killing of poachers worse is the fact that they would leave the dead or wounded poachers to be eaten by animals. Which leaves you to ask, who was more savage? The poacher killing animals brutally for the commodities that they offer? Or the scouts killing poachers and leaving them for dead to protect African wildlife?
I definitely believe that the Owenses went too far in their overzealous pursuit to protect Zambian wildlife. While their results are commendable, their means were downright shameful (if half of the things written in the article were in fact true). Obviously it was great that the local Africans were able to learn the importance of protecting their wildlife but the fact that the Owenses may have pitted, quite literally, the lives of their scouts against the lives of the poachers is despicable. Obviously, the poachers needed to be stopped but to treat the poachers as prey in the same way that they treated the animals makes the Owenses no better than the poachers. It is disturbing that people like this would claim to live from a higher moral pedestal than most of their fellow humans.
ReplyDeleteRussel Train’s experiences were fascinating and showed a very interesting transition from the days of Teddy Roosevelt and the belief in a conservationist hunter to simply conservationism. Train’s love for the safari and for wildlife allowed him to develop a desire to protect nature in total. His experiences really showed how much the beliefs of Americans had transformed since the early 1900s. His creation of the College of African Wildlife Management shows a much more responsible and moral attempt to help Africans see the importance of wildlife than the plan of the Owenses.
I agree with the general sentiments posted above concerning the speculation concerning the Owens's mission and credibility. I find one interesting ideology to be the value of a human life compared to the value of an animal life. Are these two species lives equal? Do they differ? I think the general census at the time and now would be to value the lives of animals, but value the lives of human beings more. With the case of Owens, he started to mold the two values together. It seems that Owens values the lives of elephants much more than those of humans, mostly being poachers, to the extent that he would kill to protect these animals. This is a major philosophical debate that could circle forever. However, I have to wonder the credibility of the Owens family. I am sure that they ventured into Africa with genuine concern; however, their entire stay seemed to escalate into a media frenzy and a battle for control. Keeping their wildlife preserve began to transform into more of a power of control and political game, rather than one aimed at conserving Africa's wildlife.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Train, I certainly associated his way of thinking about game hunting with Teddy Roosevelt. I found his ideologies concerning animal preservation to be interesting. I am sure that his views are still argued today in the wildlife conservation movement. Can a man be considered an animal activists if he also promotes game hunting, as well? This was one concern I had with T.R. A man so concerned with forming wildlife and national park organizations also promoted game hunting practices? One important point that Train argues is the importance of economic impact that hunting brings to the community. No matter one's philosophy concerning animal hunting, hunting does provide some economic stimulation to the community. Furthermore, Train makes the interesting argument that there should be a balance between hunting and conservation--perhaps a compromising approach.
While the Owens' definitely had the right ideology in mind, they also went too far in presuming that the land was theirs. At first, they seemed to have been amazing conservationists, especially pertaining to the elephants, and sincerely wanted to stop what they saw as dangerous poachers. However, they did not own the country of Zambia, or have the right to train scouts. It is unclear if all the rumors of the treatment of the scouts are true, but the Owens definitely think that they are superior to the African natives, who they see as only blindly hunting without thinking about the environment. This sort of attitude makes it easy to view them in a negative light, no matter how much they wanted to protect the Zambian environment.
ReplyDeleteRussell Train had a slightly different approach in how he treated conservation, after all, he was all for hunting. However, he had the same superior attitude towards the Africans in that he felt that he could control them as long as they were educated properly. Again, he had a good thought behind this idea-teaching people how to conserve their resources. However, not everyone must have appreciated the foreign presence still in Africa even during decolonization.
The attitudes of the Owens and Russell Train are similar in that they went into Africa thinking that they were doing the right thing(in Roosevelt's case, he wanted to show America what real masculinity was). However, their actions all caused people to look at them negatively.
The Owens couple took conservationist into a further level than experienced before. Prior African conservation efforts were limited to game reserves and education of the locals to help them understand the wildlife and environments that surrounded them. Africans did not always take on conservation as much as the Americans wanted because they wanted to use their land for their own use and survival. Comparable to the Americans in the original discovery of America, the land was overused in the hopes for economic prosperity. Therefore, Africans did not always protect their wildlife to the extent Americans saw necessary. The Owens saw the beauty in the wildlife in the African game reserves and wanted to protect the animals fromt he wild poachers. While dropping cherry bombs on poachers might be a little excessive, with a unresponsive government, the Owens, at least Mark, felt there was limited options to conservation. Since Africa is not as civilized and developed as the United States, the Owens may of justified their actions because they believed they were acting in accordance with the level of governance in the area. Owens and Train's approach were entirely different. Train believed in the efforts of conservation to maintain the animal population. Train hunted animals and supported the sportsmanship of hunting because he felt it was necessary for conservation. To let a population grow too quickly in an area could result in a negative environment, therefore hunting could be positive for conservation. Train also established the education program in Africa to help natives understand how to manage these game reserves. On the other hand, the Owens seemed more concerned with their own research and protection of the animals and not with the education or teaching of the locals.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGoldberg’s article about Mark and Delia Owens is most interesting when it hits on issues that are still relevant to contemporary environmental movements. The Owenses went to Botswana initially to find a place “virtually empty of people,” unsullied by human disturbance, “never visited by modern man.” There is a direct connection between this desire to find a wilderness or nature without people and the British, who in the early 20th century, removed villages from North Luangwa in order to create a wilderness reserve. While there is racial bias and vestiges of imperialism in the Owenses’ outlook, I think their dislike of people in the wilderness extends to all people. The Owenses had “A desire to live in an Eden-like Africa, free of the complications created by the presence of humans.” This rhetoric is still present in modern environmentalism, where the belief still stands that if only humans could stop their interference and leave nature alone, everything would be perfect. Mark Owens said of North Luangwa, “Here’s where civilization ends.” In this wilderness outside of civilization (and therefore government), Mark Owens could be the masculine Rambo-type who would protect the animals by any means necessary.
ReplyDeleteThere are many inconsistencies and ironies in the Owenses’ beliefs, which open up their pure idealism to questions. Although they are passionate about protecting wildlife, they advocate for ecotourism—still a commodification of nature. The Owenses augmented the salaries of park scouts with donations received from Paul Tudor Jones, a Connecticut hedge-fund manager who established a hunting reserve nearby in the late nineteen-eighties.
To a certain degree, both articles describe American’s attempting to impose their own environmental views upon local Africans. While I personally support the importance of conservation and wildlife protection, it requires a certain degree of condescending, no matter how well intentioned, to tell another group of people how to manage their lives and natural resources. The post-colonial sentiment is most aptly described within Train’s article when he recounts the guides working on his expedition, noting, “The safari was made up of about ten Africans, all referred to in those days both individually and collectively, irrespective of age, as ‘boys’ ” (Train, 29). While he obviously cares a great deal about conservation, and later makes many African friends himself, the de-humanization of the African guides helps illustrate the colonial legacy of superiority at the time. Though Train clearly grows to respect the capabilities of local Africans, it appears that the Owens did not feel the same. They write of the overpopulation in Africa, commenting, “ ‘Despite the ravages of AIDS and a plethora of other diseases, Africa’s populations continue to outstrip the carry capacity of the continental resource base’ ” (Goldberg 15). Professional Hunter P.J. Fouche says of the Owens’, “Their whole attitude was ‘Nice continent. Pity about the Africans’ ” (Goldberg 15).
ReplyDeleteI respect and admire the work of preservation done in Africa, particularly the interest shown by Train, but the idea that foreign institutions need a presence in Africa to ensure the protection of its resources speaks to a colonial legacy not entirely erased.
Russell Train approached conservation of wildlife in Africa in a very realistic and educated manner. He understood the relationship that native Africans had for the animals around him and could reason why they allowed for those wildlife to be poached and killed indiscriminately. His love for the safari became much more than just a desire to hunt and was the impetus for his creation of the African Wildlife Leadership Foundation. This organization was one of the strongest proponents for conservation due to how it worked. By educating intelligent Africans in the workings and importance of wildlife conservation, Train created a new generation of future leaders who would care about the wildlife and who would possess the necessary tools to fight to protect it. Train is like Roosevelt because they both cared about African wildlife and made it a goal to help the conservation process, but still attended safari's, and in Roosevelt's case, hunts.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Owenses, and especially Mark Owen, I do not believe they went too far in their pursuit of conservationism. The poaching problem in the North Luangwa National Park was extremely severe, and the Owens dealt with it as they saw fit. They received minimal aid from the government of Zambia, accused of corruption, and had to make do using private funds. The accomplishments they made with the limited support they had is extremely admirable, and while the life of a human should never have been taken, neither should the countless lives of the elephants
Yes I think on one hand the Owneses, especially Mark Owens, went a little to far as conservationists, but on the other hand this couple did make a difference in saving many animals lives. The Owneses approach was very aggressive and they took it upon themselves to create this change instead of waiting for the African people to make the change. Delia Owens said, “He believes that we should get personally involved—flying patrols, airlifting scouts, going on anti-poaching foot patrols with the guards. I argue that we should supply them with good equipment and encouragement, but we should not personally go after the poachers, for then they will come after us” (Goldberg 6). I agree with Delia when she said that they should not get personally involved because this is not their native land and commanding the locals to get involved is not taking the locals’ points of view into account (Goldberg 9). As we discussed in class, Mark Owens thought that all Africans were “poachers” and wanted to get rid of them all without realizing that these animals was their source of food. By forcing these people to join their efforts, they did not get the motivation that they wanted and the Owenses even stated that when they educated children of the benefits they will receive if they stop poachers from killing animals, they received more motivation from the locals. This shows that instead of allowing their conservation efforts to get to such violent terms, the Owenses should have taken a better approach such as Train did and should have educated the locals about the benefits they receive instead of violently forcing them into the efforts.
ReplyDeleteI really can't decide whether I think the Owenses when too far because it really depend on what you consider more important or more of a priority--there are legitimate concerns on their side and the side of local "poachers" and the government that set up a fence interrupting migration. Is it more important to let the migration take it's course and not provide a convenient scenario for local hunters, or is the health of cattle a country who's main industry beef, and thus people's livelihoods, more important?
ReplyDeleteAs for the bit on elephant poaching and the ivory trade: this reminds me quite a bit of the US's constant argument with Mexico over drug wars. Where the dialouge goes a little like this.
US: "It's your fault we have all these drug dealers crossing over illegally creating dangerous gang violence affecting our communities! Do something about your people!"
Mexico: "It's your fault for creating so much demand that there's money pouring into our country's drug cartels creating rampant violence and a spate of murders from illegal firearms coming form your country! You do something about your people!"
Now replace drugs with ivory and drug cartels with poachers--and add the fact that the people making conservation demands are also those that have been screwing over the countries they have been making demands. Valid points on both side but very hard to see who's in the right.
One would think that if two grad school biology students at the University of Georgia were using the methods of Jane Goodall to gain trust of wildlife in Africa would be able to make a significant impact in their field. However now their name has become synonymous with radicals. When the Owens' escalated their campaign to the point where they trained scouts with automatic weapons to engage poachers sporting AK-47's, the world knew that they were serious about their cause, and that it would be very difficult to make sure their influence did not spread to widely. I do not think the Owens went too far in their mission to end poaching and conserve the African and eventually the World's environment. We have seen the effects of global destruction of various different environments, and can see that a conservationist attitude is beneficial towards protecting important aspects of every environment. I believe that in order to support this cause, one has to support this cause wholeheartedly and be willing to die for it. Ultimately, conservation is a very difficult practice and requires somewhat of a slight hindrance towards development, a goal that is spreading fervently through governments all across the global community. I feel like the Owens would claim that one cannot support the cause of conservation any less than one hundred percent, and anything less is a failure.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the Owenses passion for African wildlife, however, while reading Goldberg's article, I could not help but think - where did they come to understand that solving Africa's poaching problem was a mission they two of them could face alone? In an interview with Vieira, Mark Owens states, “I love life in general so much that to be brought to the point of having to extinguish human life to protect wildlife is a tremendous conflict and contradiction. But give me another solution. It’s why we still have elephants here. While it was honorable, I believe that the Owenses commitment to the preservation of the elephants was unjustified. Like we discussed in class, preventing extinction and the preservation of wildlife is a global issues, it is not something to be tackeld a single country, yet alone a single couple.
ReplyDeleteTo some extent the Owenses acts in Africa can be compared to those of Teddy Roosevelt. Both believed they had legitimate missions that would serve the rest of the world. While Teddy Roosevelt's safari exceeded its initial plans, it was not the extent that the Owens's did. Teddy's safari was all about studying wildlife for the betterment of science and modern society. The Owenses, on the other hand, eventually lost touch with their modern humanity. They expressed a desire to live in an Eden-like Africa, free of the complications created by the presence of humans. Mark Owens felt as though the animals were his and he didn't want any Africans to get too close to his animals. I wonder if that their intention all along, to save all the animals for themselves? Or did they simply loose sense of their initial mission to save the animals for the rest of global society? And if so, what caused this change?
I think the first half of Goldberg’s article portrays the Owens as honorable conservationists with genuine motives. Although the couple is a little sappy at times (“knowing that no one on Earth knows where we are, or could ever find us, we feel special, as if we are the only two people in the universe – 2), their determination to save the Zambian elephants is admirable. I believe they wholeheartedly lived out their initial goal, which, succinctly stated, was the following: “no matter what it takes, or how long, we will stay in North Luangwa until the elephants come to drink at the river in peace” (4). However, it wasn’t their motives that eventually were called into question—it was their methods that unleashed a flurry of queries. People started to wonder if they treated the African hunters with ethical and humane conduct. The situation there was clearly ambiguous, resulting in the ambiguity of this article itself. Concerning the work of the Owens in this region, it’s unclear what is and isn’t fabricated. The article includes arguments by both the Owens’ supporters and critics. These two groups give vastly different portrayals of the couple and their actions, and it’s difficult for the reader to discern who’s right. I agree with Mark Owens’ claim that this situation is “very messy” and that “it almost gives conservation a very ugly name” (10). After reading this article, which later transitions into more of an attack on the Owens’ methods, it’s clear that no one really knows what happened in Zambia. It’s “very messy” indeed. For instance, while the Owens conveyed a more primitive image of Africans, such as describing them as “Stone Age Bushmen” (1) and calling the continent itself “dark” (15), this does not necessarily give us grounds to use this as evidence that Mark Owens authorized the murder of suspected poachers, as this article suggests at one point. Thus, I cannot officially declare whether or not Mark Owens went too far. The evidence for both sides is scant.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when compared to Russell Train’s methods for wildlife conservation, it seems as if the Owens did indeed go too far. Train approaches the Tanzanian situation more peacefully, which was compliant with the indigenous populations’ wishes. He did not force all African intellectuals to learn preservation techniques. Instead, interested participants studied at his schools, both abroad and back home, without coercion or threat. When juxtaposed with Train, accounts of Mark Owen’s supposed authoritative reign over the scouts, which resulted in the murder of a multitude of “suspected” poachers, appears tyrannical. It’d be interesting to read further and determine whose method was ultimately more successful.