Remember this: Bromance can conquer chasms. By
proxy hunting exists.
I was reading several articles of late that spoke
of John Muir being against hunting as part of the anti-hunting sentiment. I
wondered as I had read Muir’s work before that this wasn’t necessarily true. I
wondered if there was confusion between
complete outright derision to hunting on Muir’s part by modern day causes, or if
it was Muir’s derision to mass killing of animals and destruction of landscapes
in the time period that he lived that brought about his anguish; yet someone
was using it for fodder out of context for their rhetoric??
The article was entitled circa 2006, Saluting John
Muir’s Anti-Hunting Philosophy with commentary by Paul Watson. Personally, I don’t
believe in over-exploitation of huge animals that reproduce slowly. One has to
have common sense with that, especially at the rate of pollutants being
delivered unceremoniously in the ocean. Watson’s indicated he has resigned from
the Sierra Club and points the witch hunting finger at its members accusingly
with claims of corruption by evolving into a crass hunting society. The quote
that stood out the most to me was this one:
“Yet, who is more respectful of John Muir, I who
respect John Muir’s love of nature or Carlson who has no business insulting
John Muir with his sport hunting perversion?” (Watson 2006)
Watson goes through quotable after quotable of
Muir going with hunting parties and being present during hunts, raging against
the murder business but takes part, and goes on to stand in condemnation of
hunting itself.
I pulled out my internet library card and went
about the business of looking for the John Muir-Hunting Connection. Did it
exist? Could Muir possibly be guilty (by proxy) when it comes to hunting? Yet
be excused for this (by proxy) because the arguments against such activities is
beyond contempt and pure?
The best place to begin my short-lived search was
in John Muir’s own writings. I found the following passages of note:
Exhibit A:
“We stowed our baggage, which was not burdensome,
in one end of the canoe, taking a simple store of provisions-flour, beans,
bacon, sugar, salt, and a little dried fruit. We were to depend upon our guns, fishhooks,
spears, and clamsticks for other diet. As a preliminary to our palaver with the
natives we followed the Hudson Bay custom, then firmly established in the
North. We took materials for a potlatch, leaf tobacco, rice and sugar. Our
Indian crew laid in their own stock of provisions, chiefly dried salmon and
seal grease, while our table was to be separated, set out with the white man’s
viands.” (Muir 640)
Here we have Muir on one of his many trips, where
by way of by proxy, food that was to be eaten was either gathered up before hand, or
hunted/gathered at later dates during the trip. Did he take part or did he just
enjoy the spoils of the hunter/gatherer moment by proxy? He is not guilty, that
we know of by physically participating in hunting, but he is enjoying the spoils
of hunting itself through another’s endeavor. Is he torn by concern for the way
the animal is going to die before he eats it?
Exhibit B:
“It was a never-to-be-forgotten banquet. We were
seated on the lower platform with our feet towards the fire, and before Muir
and me were placed huge washbowls of blue Hudson Bay ware. Before each of our
native attendants was placed a great carved wooden trough, holding about as much
as the washbowls. We had learned enough
of Indian etiquette to know that at each course our respective vessels were to
be filled full of food, and we were expected to carry off what we could not
devour. It was indeed a “feast of fat things.” The first course was what, for
the Indian, takes place of bread among the whites-dried salmon. It was served,
a whole wash-bowlful for each of us, with a dressing of seal grease. Muir and I
adroitly maneuvered so as to get our salmon and seal-grease served separately;
for our stomachs had not been sufficiently trained to endure that rancid
grease. This course finished, what was left was dumped into receptacles in our
canoe and guarded from the dogs by young men especially appointed for that
purpose. Our washbowls were cleansed and the second course brought on. This
consisted of the back fat of the deer, great, long hunks of it, served with a gravy
of seal grease. The third course was little Russian potatoes about the size of
walnuts, dished out to us, a wash-bowl, with a dressing of seal grease. The
final course was the only berry then in season, the long fleshy apple of the
wild rose mellowed with frost, served to us in the usual quantity with the
invariable sauce of seal grease.
“Mon, mon!” said Muir aside to me, “I’m fashed we’ll
be floppin’ aboot I’ the sea, whiles, we’ flipers an’ forked tails.”
When we had partaken of as much of this feast of
fat things as our civilized stomachs would stand, it was suddenly announced that
we were about to receive a visit from the great chief of the Chilcats and the
Chilcoots, old Chief Shathitch (Hard-to-Kill). “ (Muir 644-45)
Once again we see that Muir is participating in a
great feast that is the product of some sort of hunting and gathering. It would
seem by the “Mon, mon” (Muir 645) comment that Muir is enjoying the
delicacies of the hunted flesh of animals. Stomach’s full, but where is the
condemnation? Could this be a sort of hypocrisy, and if so, why is it that today’s
writers are not embracing the good and bad of things instead of weeding out
offending moments in others own handwriting to further the modern day cause?
Where did his condemnation for the slaughter of animals go? If you read the
rest of the passage you find all are belly full and drowsy but having to fight
to stay awake because they have to visit with the Chief. Upon reading into his
writings, it becomes clear that when Muir wanted something he was not above
deception to get his foot in the door. Muir is, after all, human with equal parts
fault and accountability. Even in his writings you can see where he approached
indigent peoples through a guise of bringing ‘a orderly spiritual way through
missionary work’ when he really wanted access to the area to do his studying of
it. Muir would later go back after using deception and call the indigent people
of one place ‘dirty’ behind their backs after the indigents natives accepted
him as friend. This group he treated with a different opinion because they were
not seen as cultured or probably smart enough to see through his deceptions.
Roosevelt on the other hand was a different kettle of fish. He had power and Muir wanted something from him. When you look at Muir relationship dynamics, he certainly is a capable person to get his opinion across if it’s for the greater good of his mindset. With that being said, I do agree that his desire to keep natural landscape and stop the unregulated killing of animals was a good idea. When we look at a minuscule moment in John Muir’s life you will find that he is like most other people. When he doesn’t want to agree to a compromise then he becomes isolated and resentful of those that do not comply. Power, even if it is indirect can only last as long as the person that it is wielded over.
Roosevelt on the other hand was a different kettle of fish. He had power and Muir wanted something from him. When you look at Muir relationship dynamics, he certainly is a capable person to get his opinion across if it’s for the greater good of his mindset. With that being said, I do agree that his desire to keep natural landscape and stop the unregulated killing of animals was a good idea. When we look at a minuscule moment in John Muir’s life you will find that he is like most other people. When he doesn’t want to agree to a compromise then he becomes isolated and resentful of those that do not comply. Power, even if it is indirect can only last as long as the person that it is wielded over.
I wanted to take a closer look at John Muir’s
magical weekend with President T. Roosevelt. What can we discover about it?
Exhibit C:
“By a strange fatality Muir’s own letter accounts
of what occurred on the trip went from hand to hand until they were lost. There
survives a passage in a letter to his wife in which he writes: “I had a
perfectly glorious time with the President and the mountains. I never before
had a more interesting, hearty, and manly companion.” To his friend Merriam he
wrote: “Camping with the President was a memorable experience. I fairly fell in
love with him.” Roosevelt, John Muir, the Big Trees, and the lofty summits that
make our “Range of Light”—who could think of an association of men and objects
more elementally great and more fittingly allied for the public good? In a
stenographically reported address delivered by Roosevelt at Sacramento
immediately after his return from the mountains, we have a hint of what the
communion of these two greatest outdoor men of our time was going to mean for
the good of the country.
I
have just come from a four days’ rest in Yosemite [he said], and I wish to say
a word to you here in the capital city of California about certain of your
great natural resources, your forests and your water supply coming from the
streams that find their sources among the forests of the mountains…No small
part of the prosperity of California in the hotter and drier agricultural
regions depends upon the preservation of her water supply, and the water supply
cannot be preserved unless the forests are preserved. As regards some of the
trees, I want them preserved because they are the only things of their kind in
the world. Lying out at night under those giant sequoias was lying in a temple
built by no hand of man, a temple grander than any human architect could be any
possibility build, and I hope for the preservation of the groves of giant trees
simply because it would be a shame to our civilization to let them disappear.
They are monuments in themselves.
I
ask for the preservation of other forests on grounds of wise and far sighted economic
policy. I do not ask that lumbering be stopped…only that the forests be so used
that not only shall we here, this generation, get the benefit for the next few
years, but that our children and our children’s children shall get the benefit.
In California I am impressed by how great the State is, but I am even more
impressed by the immensely greater greatness that lies in the future, and I ask
that your marvelous natural resources be handed on unimpaired to your
posterity. We are not building this country of ours for a day. It is to last
through the ages.” (Muir 375-76)
Muir was inspiration and advice to a man in power.
With this being said lets look at the dynamic of this relationship. John Muir
is about saving natural landscapes and wildlife. President Theodore Roosevelt
was about hunting and politics. Both in the truest sense of the word were NATURALIST.
Here you could say that John Muir desired something and had to convince the POTUS
that saving these areas and wildlife was in the best interest of the public.
The POTUS, being a hunter and naturalist, agreed these areas needed to be
protected.
Here you have this strange moment where compromise comes about. One side can’t get completely what they want and the other side decides to bend to reason. In John Muir’s sense he wanted a beautiful place he regarded as God’s Work to be preserved and there for future generations. Who would be the responsible party? There is a big difference in the desire to want to save a place and someone actually having the power to do such a thing or being responsible for this protection over a period of time. President Roosevelt hunted therefore hunting needs a place and wildlife. Hunting also is a wish for people participating to be handed along with the responsibility of these decisions to future generations. The inspiration and advice brought the power to a place where the decision was made to act on the part of responsibility, value of such a thing, and common sense. Over time the President couldn’t give Muir everything he wanted.
Here you have this strange moment where compromise comes about. One side can’t get completely what they want and the other side decides to bend to reason. In John Muir’s sense he wanted a beautiful place he regarded as God’s Work to be preserved and there for future generations. Who would be the responsible party? There is a big difference in the desire to want to save a place and someone actually having the power to do such a thing or being responsible for this protection over a period of time. President Roosevelt hunted therefore hunting needs a place and wildlife. Hunting also is a wish for people participating to be handed along with the responsibility of these decisions to future generations. The inspiration and advice brought the power to a place where the decision was made to act on the part of responsibility, value of such a thing, and common sense. Over time the President couldn’t give Muir everything he wanted.
I believe one of the reasons this camping trip was
so important was because both men met in person and through conversation
developed a general sense of sincerity on the part of the other. Bonding and
love for something will do that to you even if it’s temporarily. There are
several lessons to be learned here. If it had not been for this meeting then
John Muir or the President may have rebuked the other based on no evidence to
the contrary. What would have happened later if by rebuking one only to find
out that the person you turned away was a valued asset to you. Individual
discriminations can close off meetings and relationships that serve the greater
good because of personal prejudices. Sometimes you have to put your personal
problems aside and put your grown-up pants on to move forward with people.
Burning bridges and creating chasms only causes one to paint oneself into a
corner. Fear will do this as well. If you fear something because you don’t know
it then go find out about it. Do not let it stay in the unknown or an obstacle
because great things are to be had for all. It just takes meeting and coming to
agreeable terms where breaking trust is not an option.
In present day you see a lot of deceptive
compromise. Anti-hunters are on one side of the chasm and hunters are on the
other. If one compromises too much, the side that received the benefit will only
pull for more. On my many trips through conversations on social media there is
always the stance that I am completely right while someone else is completely
wrong. There is also the punishment doled out because people are not connected
on the same level. Just on keyboards, in front of screens, with voices in our
heads; angry or accusing, and not present on the issue.
When reading articles, even mine, do not be afraid
to write a question in the margins; look for proof or understanding. Don’t be
afraid to question it for your own sense of understanding. Be involved in what you read. Just because
someone has some sort of power doesn’t mean they won’t eventually misuse it for
their own gain or glory. Of course I am a little nobody typing away in the
shadows.
Just remember: John Muir didn’t despise hunting so
much that he lost his place at the table.
Written by: W Harley Bloodworth
~Courtesy of the AOFH~
Literature Cited:
Muir, John. The
Life and Letters of John Muir. Boston, New York, Chicago: The Houghton
Mifflin Company. (1924). Print. Pg. 640-645
Watson, Paul. Saluting John Muir’s Anti-Hunting Philsophy.
April 21, 2006; internet article; http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2006/04/21/saluting-john-muirs-anti-hunting-philosophy-386
