John James Audubon has been made famous by his work 'Birds
of America' in which he portrays life size prints of over 400 birds. His
technique consisted of shooting as many birds of the same species as
possible so that he could use them as models for his life size paintings.
Today such acts of barbarism would not go without public condemnation; but
his work was done in the early 19th century, when the general public had a
different approach to wildlife conservation. It is argued that without
Audubon's work the general public at the time would have never learned
about the existence of many species of birds that he shot and drew, and
consequently people would have never cared enough to eventually agree that
the Everglades need to be protected for these species to continue to exist.
Audubon himself was highly concerned for nature conservation, even though
his love for hunting would suggest otherwise. In fact, most hunters (not
yahoo's from cities that just want to blast something) are very
pro-conservation because if their favorite hunting areas are destroyed then
there would not be anything for them to hunt. I still do not agree with
Audubon's methods, which in many cases are exaggerated (like having a
shooting contest with other explorers to the point where the dead and
injured birds are amassed in a mountain-like heap) and inexcusable.
Although the work of documenting all those species of
birds was a great achievement, one has to look at the price that was paid.
Audubon himself killed scores of them to get accurate portraits, and in the
generations after Audubon's death, the birds' plumes became a highly
requested item of fashion. This led to even more killing by plume hunters
that nearly extinguished many species. I think this came about thanks to
the publicity that Audubon gave them and that the general public was not
ready to appreciate these beautiful birds when Audubon presented them in
his works, and instead of wanting to protect them they chose to make
fashionable hats out of their plumes. So perhaps Audubon did more harm than
good by exposing these birds, because had they never been seen by the
fashion designers of the time, they would have never been used as hats for
the next few generations.
In general I am not against hunting if the animals
killed are then eaten. I believe that one should only kill what one will
consume. I cannot stand excessive killing because it is wasteful and
harmful to the balance of the ecosystem. Audubon's name in my opinion
should not even be mentioned in such books like the Audubon Guide to South
Florida' because his excessive shooting did much more damage than good to
the ecosystems that he claimed to cherish so much. I simply cannot justify
the killing or maiming of hundreds of birds at a time just to let the vast
majority of them rot under the sun. In fact, had the public not been
exposed to many of these exotic birds to begin with there would have never
even been the absurd bird hat' fashion of the later years of the 19th
century. It would have been much better had we discovered these birds later,
when people were more responsible in their treatment of ecosystems. Then,
instead of having one person shoot multiple birds just to draw them, you
could have simply taken a photograph of the same bird and not damaged
anything in the process. Audubon was a sport hunting fool that does not
deserve the recognition he gets. His excessive hunting style reflects on a
general culture of excess that led to much damage to habitats around the
United States under various forms: dredging of swamps, pollution of streams
and air, cutting down forests, and generally destroying the natural beauty
of the United States to please the ever growing population and their
excessive needs. Even today the general population embraces this culture of
excess. The Native Americans lived in harmony with nature and never took
more than what they needed, effectively living within the circle of life;
the white man did nothing but disrupt the cycle of life, acting more like a
cancer than an animal.
Numerous wonderful animals have gone extinct or are in
great danger of being extinct because of our irresponsible treatment of our
natural surroundings (a good example being the random shooting of buffalo
by train passengers crossing the great plains that led to the near
extinction of an animal that once thrived in those regions). Even a
beautiful National Park like the Everglades is no where near its past glory,
and the once natural water flow is now controlled by man through a series
of canals, pumps, and ridges. The restoration plans all include man
controlled water flows and fires because we have found it impossible to
coexist naturally with our surrounding and the only way for us to maintain
them as they were intended to be is to control them ourselves. I do not
believe it will ever be possible under these circumstances to restore the
Everglades to their past beauty and plentiful resources, but at least we
will be able to maintain a semi-natural environment (with the flow of water
and the fire control being artificial'). It would be nice if we could all
learn to live in harmony with nature like the natives did, but our culture
of excess does not fit well with that sort of lifestyle so we need to take
what we can get. The only hope we have to maintain these ecosystems is if,
through technology, we can simulate and reproduce the natural conditions
(such as in the case of the Everglades with water flow and fires). This is
why it is very important to focus a lot of resources on science.
