I am loath to comment on this piece, for is not commenting on this author's article the same as taking a gun and shooting her between the eyes ? Am I not building on millennia of male privilege and dominance in deriding her views as being simplistic and underdeveloped, and is that not the same as acting as our forebears did and clubbing her over the head ? Or is this all too blindingly obvious ?
4
Helen Macdonald's reflections on a photography safari in South Africa call to mind Clive James's poem "A Valediction for Philip Larkin", including these stanzas:
"Toyotas full of tourists who shoot rolls
Of colour film off in the cheetah's face
While she sleeps in the grass or gravely strolls
With bloody cheeks back from the breathless chase,
Alone except for half the human race.
[...]
"Such sights were trophies, ivory and horn
Destined for carving into objets d'art.
[...]
"Hull stood for England, England for the world--
The whole caboodle crammed into one room.
Above your desk all of creation swirled
For you to look through with increasing gloom,
Or so your poems led us to assume."
"Toyotas full of tourists who shoot rolls
Of colour film off in the cheetah's face
While she sleeps in the grass or gravely strolls
With bloody cheeks back from the breathless chase,
Alone except for half the human race.
[...]
"Such sights were trophies, ivory and horn
Destined for carving into objets d'art.
[...]
"Hull stood for England, England for the world--
The whole caboodle crammed into one room.
Above your desk all of creation swirled
For you to look through with increasing gloom,
Or so your poems led us to assume."
2
Wow, what a grump. I have gone on these very same "safaris" two times and thought they were well handled and valuable to me, the people employed to do them, the countries that received foreign exchange revenue and the animals who are treasured as a valuable and fragile resource.
Hey, here's a headline "The World Found to be Imperfect"
Hey, here's a headline "The World Found to be Imperfect"
3
Helen writes beautifully about the mysteries of life. being humans, we can never know the reality of wild animals. she writes with appreciation of these mysteries.
5
I do not understand this opinion piece at all. I think sometimes some individuals become so immersed in their own intellect that they forget to look outside of themselves, at reality. Ms. MacDonald's piece came off as incredibly judgmental. She says, "But are we innocent visitors to this place? Our appropriation of the landscape through photographic safaris is just as bound up in those old colonial structures as trophy hunting is, even if the animals we shoot don’t die." Several other people have already commented that if it were not for the tourists who come just to take pictures then many many more of the animals, especially the lions, elephants, and rhinos, would have been poached long ago and today would truly be teetering on extinction and that is absolutely true. Ms. MacDonald cannot see this, or refuses to see it, or shamelessly fabricates a problem with tourism in the African because she knows her writing will be divisive and thus more people will read it. Ignoring the reality that tourism is the greatest protection against poaching makes this piece nothing more than a diary entry by a person who sees herself as the REAL conservationist. Ms. MacDonald says that the REAL animals eating, drinking, and breathing before her very eyes "exactly resemble the ones on TV." That sentence says it all about how the writer perceives the world around her; what she sees before her "resembles" what she sees on t.v. I always thought it was the other way around.
7
I'm certain the lion appreciates the significant difference between photographers and hunters. What an imbecilic question. All species now are impacted by our grossly overpopulated species. Their challenge is simple survival.
17
The alternative is that we leave the lions to themselves and their environment. I would prefer that, but, things don't work like that. There is something craven about invading the lion's space, and that of other creatures, but the animals, no doubt, prefer the sound of their own making, and that of the vehicles, versus the sound of a rifle shot. Having been on safari a few times in S Africa and Kruger, the animals seem just fine with the proposition.
3
Is there a difference? Of course there is. After you and your fellow travelers leave, the lion is still alive!
24
The difference between shooting a lion with a gun or with a camera, while subtle to the author, would be less so to the lion. And removing humans from the area, converting it to a park and protecting it now so that tourists can visit is probably a major reason the lion still exists.
24
My wife and I were on a safari in Tanzania last February with the Sierra Club. It was a wonderful experience. It is not like visiting a zoo or game park. There were times when our Landrover was one of many observing the animals, but there where also times when we our group was alone stopped on the plain to just observe the animals--and not just predators. Of course, I took lots of pictures, and it is not like buying postcards. I have no doubt that we had impact on the environment, but I also have no doubt that without the visitor there would be no parks and reserves and many of the species would be extinct on on the way to extinction.
13
I think the author is over thinking this. The lion surely isn't.
21
Safari could plausibly harm wild animals by reducing hunting success or adding stress when survival chances are marginal.
On an open jeep safari in Kruger National Park in South Africa, we sighted a gaunt-looking lioness stalking a herd of impala from a stony outcrop. Lions only hunt in the daylight when they are extremely hungry, so this is a relatively rare event. The lioness’ location was radioed through by our ranger to other safari jeeps in our vincinity, despite my and my travel companion’s protest. A large convoy of excited spectators soon made their noisy way down the road, thereby blocking the lioness’ direct access to the herd of impala grazing across the road. The lioness disappeared from view, and its herd of intended prey scattered soon after, lessening the chances of the lioness capturing a meal. Although it is important to satisfy paying visitor’s expectations of sighting a Big Cat so that they will return to the park, I was concerned that the lioness (and its cubs) faced potential starvation in serving our urgent need to see them in the wild. Should we have kept the sighting to ourselves, then quietly leave the lion to a likely more successful hunt?
On an open jeep safari in Kruger National Park in South Africa, we sighted a gaunt-looking lioness stalking a herd of impala from a stony outcrop. Lions only hunt in the daylight when they are extremely hungry, so this is a relatively rare event. The lioness’ location was radioed through by our ranger to other safari jeeps in our vincinity, despite my and my travel companion’s protest. A large convoy of excited spectators soon made their noisy way down the road, thereby blocking the lioness’ direct access to the herd of impala grazing across the road. The lioness disappeared from view, and its herd of intended prey scattered soon after, lessening the chances of the lioness capturing a meal. Although it is important to satisfy paying visitor’s expectations of sighting a Big Cat so that they will return to the park, I was concerned that the lioness (and its cubs) faced potential starvation in serving our urgent need to see them in the wild. Should we have kept the sighting to ourselves, then quietly leave the lion to a likely more successful hunt?
10
I think you must leave your vehicle behind to experience wildlife, whether wolves and bears in North America or the big five in Africa.
There are African countries that still permit walking (and canoeing) photographic safaris. The author will feel better if she is on foot - and she will not get so close that she intrudes.
8,000 lbs. of steel, rubber, and passengers is not what lions evolved to be interested in.
There are African countries that still permit walking (and canoeing) photographic safaris. The author will feel better if she is on foot - and she will not get so close that she intrudes.
8,000 lbs. of steel, rubber, and passengers is not what lions evolved to be interested in.
9
The author knows that the only way for someone to "really ever meet" a lion is when it is trying to eat you. People on these "safaris" bear little of that risk and that is why she questions the whole enterprise.
As for shooting the lions with a camera, the people may as well go to the park gift shop and take a picture of a lion postcard.
As for shooting the lions with a camera, the people may as well go to the park gift shop and take a picture of a lion postcard.
3
It is partly true - 'snapshot' was originally a hunting term, and the appeal of stalking your subject for photographic attack is an almost visceral excitement- but when you shoot a lion with a photographic lens, it lives to roar another day.
8
“What I am doing watching this lion is nothing like trophy hunting, I tell myself, though some part of me isn’t sure”.
Really?
Try this. Next time you're observing the human wildlife while on safari at Cambridge University, pull out your camera and start papa-razzing someone until the point of annoyance – you know – until they attempt to move away from you. Then, just for literary perspective, take out a hunting rifle and shoot them.
Get it now? Every part of you sure?
Yes Virginia, there is a difference, no matter the species.
Really?
Try this. Next time you're observing the human wildlife while on safari at Cambridge University, pull out your camera and start papa-razzing someone until the point of annoyance – you know – until they attempt to move away from you. Then, just for literary perspective, take out a hunting rifle and shoot them.
Get it now? Every part of you sure?
Yes Virginia, there is a difference, no matter the species.
26
The author seems grimly determined to find angst where there should be none. Some people are like that. Just a few feet away from any wild animal, let alone a lion, one would think the predominant feelings would be of wonder, awe, and the good fortune to experience the moment. But not the author- she wonders instead about "what spurs our desperate urge to take photographs." Really? Who's desperate, besides her? How about captivated, enthralled, excited, uplifted?
And she is disappointed that the lion is not interested in her (don't assume for 1 second he's not completely aware of you!). How better, though, to observe an animal in its natural element than when it is undisturbed by your presence, and goes about its normal routine? Cause for angst? Hardly.
Finally, the author laments that "There is a lion reality that we cannot access. We live in different worlds, and we cannot really ever meet." Actually, you can. Step out of the Land Rover, and rediscover what it is like to be somewhere other than the top of the food chain. The lion will gladly oblige, easily crushing your chest with its massive canines, and if hungry enough, starting to consume you without waiting for you to die first. Humans and lions have shared the same world for millennia. Apparently no amount of natural history can penetrate the haze of the self-absorbed professional tourist.
And she is disappointed that the lion is not interested in her (don't assume for 1 second he's not completely aware of you!). How better, though, to observe an animal in its natural element than when it is undisturbed by your presence, and goes about its normal routine? Cause for angst? Hardly.
Finally, the author laments that "There is a lion reality that we cannot access. We live in different worlds, and we cannot really ever meet." Actually, you can. Step out of the Land Rover, and rediscover what it is like to be somewhere other than the top of the food chain. The lion will gladly oblige, easily crushing your chest with its massive canines, and if hungry enough, starting to consume you without waiting for you to die first. Humans and lions have shared the same world for millennia. Apparently no amount of natural history can penetrate the haze of the self-absorbed professional tourist.
40
I disagree with this overlay of talk about imperialism.
It is worthwhile to see and feel where these animals really live, evolved to what they are. See and feel the heat, the sun, the wind, the dust. Hear what it sounds like to be there.
And a party in the woods, under the night sky, hearing the roars, feeling the same wind and night as the animals? That is fun. You don't have to spoil it with talk of something 100 years ago.
It is worthwhile to see and feel where these animals really live, evolved to what they are. See and feel the heat, the sun, the wind, the dust. Hear what it sounds like to be there.
And a party in the woods, under the night sky, hearing the roars, feeling the same wind and night as the animals? That is fun. You don't have to spoil it with talk of something 100 years ago.
16
Except that it's not 100 years ago; the humans removed from park are still in the environment and still bear the brunt of choices made (ie, may not see economic benefit if not part of park program, in fact, may see economic detriment- for example, how elephants leaving parks can devour crops. see also, how the local people were punished under the law regarding Cecil but the visiting American was not-- textbook case of outside pressures creating influence on economic patterns; ie, guided big game "hunting" creating perverse incentives).
And the essay speaks directly to worthwhileness of seeing how "these animals really live" and the author's realization that perhaps her expectations were colored more by her perceptions (shaped by historical patterns about Africa, like most of us) than the reality she sees on the ground. Feeling that something is being "spoiled" by author bringing particular ideas to the fore while pondering her trip is kind of striking-- in that shows how she's right about perceptions; after all, why complicate what's supposed to be fun vacation with ideas about context or others' experience (human or wildlife)? Get that having to reconsider assumptions can feel slightly defensive-- but that's what makes the essay thoughtful and worthy of NYT! :)
And the essay speaks directly to worthwhileness of seeing how "these animals really live" and the author's realization that perhaps her expectations were colored more by her perceptions (shaped by historical patterns about Africa, like most of us) than the reality she sees on the ground. Feeling that something is being "spoiled" by author bringing particular ideas to the fore while pondering her trip is kind of striking-- in that shows how she's right about perceptions; after all, why complicate what's supposed to be fun vacation with ideas about context or others' experience (human or wildlife)? Get that having to reconsider assumptions can feel slightly defensive-- but that's what makes the essay thoughtful and worthy of NYT! :)
5
Perhaps at present the big five are considered a nuisance by some people in southern Africa. That is understandable, if elephants eat crops and lions occasionally attack livestock or people. Just recall that we in North America considered wolves a nuisance, so we got rid of them. Now, without any top predators to keep their numbers under control, deer populations have exploded across much of the East Coast, enabling the rapid spread of tick-borne illnesses, and causing more damage than wolves ever did. Refusal to protect ecosystems and particularly important species based on dramatically expanded definitions of imperialism may be convenient for some, but is ultimately incredibly shortsighted from an environmental, economic, and social perspective.
9
You are so right. Killing off wolves was one of the dumbest environmental decisions we Americans made based on lobbying by the beef & sheep industries. Not only deer, but also coyotes, fox & wild hogs are decimating our landscape & spreading disease due our slaughter of wolves. How short-sighted we humans are.
3