Human Interaction with Nature in the Works of Aldo Leopold and Elizabeth Bishop

Although Leopold’s love of great expanses of wilderness is readily apparent, his book does not cry out in defense of particular tracts of land about to go under the axe or plow, but rather deals with the minutiae, the details, of often unnoticed plants and animals, all the little things that, in our ignorance, we have left out of our managed acreages but which must be present to add up to balanced ecosystems and a sense of quality and wholeness in the landscape.

As time passed in the tundra of Churchill, Mowat is then experience with new adventures about learning more and more about the “killer” animals. After unloading into the cabin and viewing the wolves from afar. He begins to think with a new aspect about the wolves. “I has made my decision that, from this hour onward, I would go open-minded into the lupine world and learn to see and know the wolves, not for what they were supposed to be, but for what they actually were” (Mowat 77). Mowat is recognizing the stereotype and wants to disregard all the beliefs. He wants to view the wolves with an

As a result, the child on the cover has sharp teeth and an almost evil grin as he is attempting to pick up the fish bowl off of a table that is above his head. Secondly, looking at the fish; their facial expressions show that they are fearful of what is occurring. Both fish have open mouths, as well as eyes and

o Page 49 “…the hooked fish, the female, made a wild, panic-stricken, despairing fight that soon exhausted her..”

Behavioral Biologist at Edinburgh University, Victoria Braithwaite in her article, Hooked on a Myth, Published in Los Angeles Times 2006, addresses the topic of “fish have feelings”, and argues that we should adopt new ways of fishing. She supports this claim by the behavioral studies and experiments, as well as the examples and similarities the fish have with humans. She adopts a determined and passionate tone for her audience, the readers of Los Angeles Times and others interested in the topic animal justice.

After the wolf leaves his home, the narrator calls his mother and tells her that a wolf just came to see him, and she tells him that “‘there’s one at mine too. I’m just now looking at him’” (Poissant 3). With this moment we realize that the lack of appreciation for the world around us is not just an individual issue, but a collective issue with the society we live in. The narrator wasn’t the first person to take a moment for granted, and will not be the last, as we as a privileged species do not recognize that we are fortunate to have things as simple as food on our tables and clothes on our bodies. The wolf in this story is acting as the world telling us that we cannot take anything for granted, or else it will be gone before we know it. This mindset will arguably be the demise of our species, as soon enough we will all be seeing wolves that will be take away our belongings. Only then will we come to appreciate everything we have in our lives.

What do you think of wolves? Do you think they’re blood-thirsty killers, or do you think they are rather friendly animals? In the book, Never Cry Wolf, (1963) the author, Farley Mowat, writes about his excursion to the sub arctic Barren Lands of Canada to study how wolves act and how the community is being affected by the wolves. The people of Churchill lead Mowat to believe the wolves are something that they aren’t, which is a blood-thirsty killer. Mowat then uses the rhetorical strategy Pathos throughout the book to show you how he personifies the wolves and how fear is all in our minds.

After Leopold shot the wolf, he and his friend reached the old wolf in time to watch “that fierce green fire die in her eyes” (68). Leopold continues to state, “I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes- something known to only her and the mountain.” After killing the wolf and explaining his theory on how fewer wolves meant more deer and that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise, Leopold is quick to recognize his cruel error. In paragraph 7, the author says, “Since then I have lived to see state after state expirate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death” (Leopold 68). After coming to realization of what he had just done, Leopold feels empty, as now there is an important factor in the wildlife missing. The author’s experience reminds me of the way myself and others often take situations and people for granted. I find myself taking advantage of things; whether it be friends, sports, or opportunities, not knowing what I had until it is

Without the proper knowledge needed to understand how the wolf works, the creature is inaccurately shown as a wild, vicious killer. As Mowat progresses through his research he learns about the wolves hunting abilities and begins to acquire new information and states,” I could hardly believe that the all-powerful and intelligent wolf would limit his predation on the caribou herds to culling the sick and infirm when he could presumably, take his choice of the fattest and most succulent individuals” (Mowat 126). The way the government and people portray wolves as mindless killers is not only false, but it is far from the truth. Wolves are instead intelligent creatures that have the ability to choose and pick the right kill. Also, as Mowat researches their eating habits he finds that “the wolves of Wolf House Bay, and, by inference at least, all the Barren Land wolves who were raising families outside the summer caribou range, were living largely, on mice” (Mowat 107). During the summer the wolves weren’t even that cause of the deaths of caribou. Instead they found new resources to live off of when the caribou leave so they can continue to survive. This information is an exact contrast to the

that the wolves could defend themselves, but nevertheless it is not known if they are going to live, it could be that they die "The idiot chatter" of the man indicates the horrible end that they will suffer.

Terry Tempest William’s written essay, “A Shark in the Mind of One Contemplating Wilderness,” delivers to us, with intended purpose using shocking truths of greed and destruction. Actions took under the cloak and disguise of the needs of civilization, creating more jobs, or even to boost the rich man’s governmental legacy of our badly raped and abused national economy. How continued acts of greed and wanton disregard for the environment, are endangering nature the wilderness areas we have sought to protect? Acts that leave behind damage and destruction where once nature and wilderness thrived.

to the old man and his recent kill. Seeing as how when the old man kills the fish is supposed

Nature and wilderness were very important ideas to some extant for St. John de Crevecoeur and Ralph Waldo Emerson, each had their own opinions and ideas that contrasted against each other and were somewhat similar to each other. Emerson who valued it and looked at the nature as something to proud of had used it many times in his works as examples and that we are part of nature as well and make whatever choices from it as it can from us. While Crevecoeur believes that in every land it has its own form of culture as it does its own kind of nature, and describes how the land and nature was then and how it will be giving details of it in his pieces of work. How they use and see nature is described equally important in both their works “the American Scholar” and “What is an American” but shows how different their views really are in them.

The author’s diction is easy to understand, not complicated fisherman dialect. In lines 8 and 9, she uses words that offer a precise description of the fish, "battered and venerable and homely". But she also employs words that show that she has knowledge of fishing, such as, shiny entrails (line 31), and isinglass (line 41).

During his time, Aldo Leopold was a conservationist who believed in the longevity of the land and that we should protect it, even if we must protect the land from ourselves. While this was an unpopular opinion, realizing that the land and animals naturally work together in a symbiotic relationship to protect one another was very apparent to Leopold. He believed that humans should be doing our best to lessen our impact on the environment. Time has caught up with Leopold’s ideologies and it is time that our efforts and contributions to the earth did too.