How is nature like art?

They are both subjective is how

Is a coyote natural? Where? In what contexts?

As I’ve studied humans and wildlife, and how we think about the animals around us, I keep coming across the idea that coyotes don’t belong in specific places. They don’t belong in cities around people’s pets*—even if they were there before the cities were. They don’t belong around ranches or sheep, no matter how many hundreds or thousands of years they may have been there, and no matter how poorly guarded the sheep might be. They don’t belong in suburbs, no matter how much trash we leave out, how many rodents we attract.

Where do coyotes belong? In the wilderness, we might say. Far from us. In nature!

Is this coyote in the wilderness where it “belongs”? With the little boundary markers in there, wilderness is as subjective as “belonging” is. Photo by Lance Anderson on Unsplash

Except sometimes, they don’t even belong there. In Dan Flores’ “Coyote America,” he goes into detail about the history of coyote extermination in the US, something which I only skimmed the surface of in my own book.

“Yellowstone aimed its first predator-extermination campaign directly at the park’s “numerous and bold” coyote population. At first the army rangers who patrolled the park randomly shot every coyote they saw.”

Yes. Yellowstone. The National Park. The OG. Park people killed the animals living in a park that we now view as a sacred animal sanctuary.

The original reasoning behind this was that national parks were not supposed to be holy icons of nature. Early conservationists were not THAT kind of conservationist.** Instead, the parks were supposed to breed game animals, that would then spread beyond the parks so people could hunt them. In the late 19th century, the ideal world was one of human domination only, where humans were the top hunting predators, and all others need not apply. We would keep the bison and elk and deer populations down with our thoroughly modern guns, clean kills, and bottomless appetite.

Of course this reasoning shows the colonialist, Manifest Destiny mindset of that era, a mindset that still persists today in different forms.

But this reasoning also reveals something else: an idea of what “natural” is, what pure, clean nature is supposed to be. And in the late 19th and early 20th century, predators were the epitome of something that was unnatural. A true, natural landscape contained only prey. It was bucolic. Pastoral.

Now, we think, we know better, we know what a food web is. We know that coyotes and even wolves belong in Yellowstone. They belong in many natural parks, carrying out their natural functions. We know (at least intellectually) that life and death, predators and prey, are fundamentally intertwined. We know what an ecosystem is, and what is correct and ideal and “natural” and “native” places.

But I wonder: Do we? Do we really? If we were so wrong in the early 20th century, 19th century, 18th century, why are we so certain we now are right? There are so many dynamics about nature that we still don’t fully understand. We are only beginning to understand how populations of different predators truly affect populations of prey (we have general ideas that predators up = prey down, and there are great scientists looking across ecosystems at how introductions affect different populations).

We don’t know what the “original” system looked like. Often, people read or write about “rewilding,” taking things back to how they “belong.” But if we don’t know what the original looked like, how can we get back to it? If we did, which system do we go back TO? 1800? 1500? 0? And in those “natural” systems…where are the people? Because of course, Indigenous peoples were here that entire time. They, we, are also part of this ecosystem.

I think about this especially when it comes to invasive species. Right now, we are eagerly re-introducing predators to many ecosystems. At the same time, we are ripping out weeds, squishing the “wrong” bugs, and fretting over animals that we have brought with us. Cats. Rats. Snakes.

But again, I want to know: What counts as invasive? What doesn’t? When the first Maori came to Aotearoa/New Zealand, they brought rats. On purpose. They were and are an important part of the food culture of the Maori. Are those invasive? Modern Kiwis sure think so. What about dingoes brought by Indigenous Australians? Horses released in the 1500s and now beautiful symbols of the Wild West?

All of these animals arrived and spread on their own. They all impacted the ecosystem. Which are okay, and which are not? As I note in my book, the answer is often very subjective. It can be based on our research on the effects to an ecosystem. But whether those effects are positive or negative is based on our beliefs, our ideas of what that ecosystem should look like. Where WE think an animal belongs.

Where have you been?

• Is it watching this great blue heron eat an entire rat? Because it’s amazing. The shot of the bird with the rat tail sticking out like “what? Do I have something in the beak?” slays me every time.

• Maybe it’s reading about this anole that can blow a little bubble over its nostrils to stay underwater and avoid predators!

• Or maybe it’s reading about how fiddler crabs are migrating north due to climate change? Beware the claw?

• Perhaps its learning how many seabirds we end up catching as we fish for fish. Yikes.

Where have I been?

I swear I work all year round, it’s just that all of the things tend to come out over the same week!

• My book is FREE right now on Kindle Unlimited! Free! QUICK! GO GET IT.

• Are you a science writer or editor or PIO? Going to the NASW meeting? I’m organizing two (2) sessions! We are doing Science Writer 4 Hire (the world’s BEST writer/editor meet and greet) both virtually AND in person! If you’re an editor? Sign up! If you’re a writer? Show up! If you are a PIO? Both options are potentially open to you! Check it out!

• I am ALSO organizing a Friday afternoon workshop at the meeting on trauma-informed journalism. Based on our ecstatically reviewed plenary last year, this workshop is going to help you learn how to protect your sources who have been through traumatic things, from natural disasters to medical trauma. It can also help writers and editors talk about the trauma they’ve experienced in their work, and help us look out for each other. Sign up!

• My latest article for Templeton is out. Your brain is full of mistakes. But not the thing you did in 7th grade that you think about at 4am (you know the thing). Instead, it’s mistakes in our DNA. And they may not be all bad!

• I did an interview for the Green Dreamer podcast about my book, and how pests challenge our sense of power. I love the custom art they made!

Anti-Discourse Actions

Sometimes, it just seems as though we are all witnessing and posting and amplifying and scolding, and the net result is that…everything is actually worse. We certainly FEEL worse. Me? I am taking action instead.

• I donated to chemistry classroom that needed new balances! It’s hard to feel like a scientist, see yourself as a scientist, if you’re working on old, crappy equipment that doesn’t work.

• I also donated to a GoFundMe for a friend of a friend. Mutual aid matters.

• WE DID IT!!!! 500 letters for Vote Forward! 500! It was a slog but we got there. Now we’re gonna have a party to stamp and close them all.

*Neither Haitians, nor anyone else, are eating anyone’s pets. I cannot believe that that has to be said out loud. Coyotes, though? Coyotes may very well eat your pets.

**There’s more than one kind of conservationist in the world, and many, many conservationists are hunters and anglers, not just bird watchers and hikers. It often shocks people when I tell them that in many states, the vast majority of state parks and conservation efforts are funded by hunting licenses. If this shocks you, ask yourself: When was the last time you paid to hike, watch birds, or take a walk? How much did you pay? How much do you WANT to pay? Trails don’t maintain themselves, bathrooms and trailhead parking doesn’t clean or maintain itself. Blazes don’t magically appear. Often, it is hunting that pays for those things, which is in part why so many state natural resource departments are trying to INCREASE hunting.