Going Wild: Hunting, Animal Rights, and the Contested Meaning of Nature

Rating:
Summary: Excellent look at how complex animal rights can actually be
Review: Going Wild, a book by Jan Dizard, takes us to the Quabbin Reservoir in central Massachusetts. This watershed and the surrounding 'wilderness' has become a focal point of many very complex issues regarding nature and how we treat it. The problem: too many deer. Dizard puts forth a thorough set of arguments as to whether this is a problem, what the problem actually is, and what to do about it. The reader gets a sense that animal rights, as well as human's rights, are a much more complex issue than a superficial glance would reveal. Dizard spends time addressing the question of what wilderness really is. She quotes Thoreau and some of the other early environmentalists in an attempt to answer this question. While the Quabbin may appear very wild and natural to the outside observer, it has definitely been touched by the hand of man. The organization in charge of managing the area, the Metropolitan District Commision (MDC) worked hard to balance the purpose of the reservoir, drinking water, with the aesthetics of a forest. This management, which some argue as short sighted, led to a deer explosion in the 1980's which was claimed to be endangering the forest and would eventually lead to the water being in danger. There were several public meetings held to discuss the deer problem. Filled with emotional and passionate arguments on both sides tensions ran high in the community. Some argued that the deer weren't actually a problem. To those knowledgeable about healthy forests, even those that were against the hunt, it was quite obvious that there was a serious issue. A healthy forest would be thick with undergrowth and would be very hard to traverse except for carved out paths. However the Quabbin was a virtual park, with a high canopy of trees and a floor of low lying ferns. The in-between area was open, one could see for great distances through the trees. Those that could admit a problem, were then often skewed as to what to do about it. While the MDC was fairly unified publicly, those critical of it were in factions. In 1991, the decision was made... the hunt would take place. Access to the Quabbin was restricted, and orientation sessions were required of the hunters. It was explained, in no uncertain terms, what the purpose of the hunt was and rules were laid down. The first day, both critics and supporters were on edge. If there weren't many deer killed, there'd be an argument that maybe there were not that many deer after all. Had a hunter been killed or had any accidental shootings taken place, this would of provided an argument against the hunters being the proper 'tools of management'. Had an eagle or moose been killed, it would have been a public relations disaster for the MDC. There's a central theme presented throughout the book, voiced from many different perspectives, and this is whether management of nature is an impossibility. Many were quoted with opinions stating that we as humans can ever fully understand the web of complexities found in nature. Are our attempts at managing nature simply disrupting an equilibrium? Is man essentially separate from nature? These questions were purposed, with some interesting answers in this book. I personally tend to agree with those that argued that while yes, if wilderness still existed, then we should leave it alone to it's own regulation mechanisms. However, true wilderness died hundred's of years ago. Now that we, as mankind, have gotten involved with managing of nature, we have the obligation to continue the management as long as we try to coexist with it. We've essentially adopted the earth, and now are left its stewards.