There are ecologists that kill, ecologists that let live, and Martha Gellhorn disrespected the first and admired the second:
As you know, I set out on my ecologists’ hunt - who is doing what and where - full of faith plus hope and charity, eager to learn and ready to admire. Instead, within nine days my first unexpected doubt had turned into something far more grave. . . . I do not expect my opposition to what is going on will move mountains; I only hope, like one hurling (not throwing) a pebble into a pond, to create some effective ripples. . . . There is a small number of purely behavioral ecologists, who patiently and skillfully (and also bravely) observe animals and do not kill them. I admire and respect the pure behaviorists because they do not harm (and this is a rare talent in itself). An example is Hans Kruuk, who has been in the Serengeti for five years, studying hyenas. The upshot of his work is that the hyena is okay in his environment, belongs there, and the relation of prey and predator is working as nature intended. This is good news for the hyena as it prevents one of the nice Park Wardens from shooting hyena on sight on the grounds that they are nasty and there are too many of them. And the behavioral ecologists, even if there is nothing more positive they can do for wildlife then prove scientifically that it ought to be let alone, acquire knowledge which is fascinating and useful to us - an extension of our insight into our own behaviour. . . . But the patient men are few, as I’ve said, while the killer ecologists increase and thrive. Nothing has convinced me that this killing for science is justifiable. (Quoted from a letter to Raymond F. Dasmann, in Selected Letters of Martha Gellhorn.)
Click for brief biographies of Martha Gellhorn, of Raymond F. Dasmann, and of Hans Kruuk.
Comments