Myth In Karl Jacoby's Crimes Against Nature

1887 Words 8 Pages
Throughout Karl Jacoby’s Crimes against Nature he analyzes four distinct myths about conservation that he intends to refute in his book. I will analyze the “conservation’s final myth involved the relationship between the movement and the people it most directly affected. Ever since Marsh’s Man and Nature, a key component of conservation’s degradation discourse has been the need to use science and the state to protect nature from the recklessness of rural folks” (Jacoby, 198). Jacoby attempts to bust the myth by advocating that government and science worked well together by negatively impacting most of the rural folk through hunting, law making, and military protection in the Adirondacks, Yellowstone, and in the Grand Canyon national parks. …show more content…
With the goal of preserving the Adirondacks water supply in mind, an unofficial law passed by the New York State Legislature allowed private individuals and clubs to purchase park land and issue strict regulations. “Among Adirondacks, private parks soon became the most hated facet of conservation (Jacoby, 41)”. This is a law that really restricted local people’s rights to hunt, fish, or live on that land. In Yellowstone, hunting and law making coexisted where a hunter had killed eleven buffalo so express his rights to the land which prompted a swift government law regulation increase (Jacoby, 124). “Captain Anderson in particular (Jacoby, 124)” is a military figure that went to enforce Yellowstone’s flimsy authority in its law makers. Yellowstone further exercised its right over the rural folk by either “confinement to Fort Yellowstone’s guardhouse (Jacoby, 125)” or the “confiscation of all goods that lawbreakers had used in committing their crimes (Jacoby, 125)”. These were Yellowstone’s methods for attempting to utilize law to break the will of the rural folk buffalo hunters. In addition, game laws were against the rural folk partly because of the distinctions that the working class rural folk had with each other and their forms of poaching (Jacoby, 139). In the Grand Canyon, the prevailing rural folk were the Havasupai Native Americans. I …show more content…
In Jacoby’s argument that the government and conservation scientists work against the rural folk, Worster discusses environmental history that “it rejects the conventional assumption that human experience has been exempt from natural constraints, that people are a separate and ‘supernatural species” (Worster, 290), which reinforces Jacoby’s point that the government really seems to believe that most of the time they are separate from the ‘uncultured’ rural folk who are destroying the nature they are attempting to create. Furthermore, Worster mentions that “few scientists have perceived people or human societies as being integral parts of their ecosystems (Worster, 297)”. Worster makes a great claim here by saying that how can the conservationists truly know more about the land than the rural folk who have done everything their lives entail on that land. If the land is meant to benefit why does the government berate the rural folk who have cultivated the land hitherto. Does the government always have an agenda in mind such as preserving the Adirondacks water supply or the forests buffalo herds? Leopold and Smith also have great arguments toward how the moral philosophy behind the government and conservationists should react to being against the rural folk. Smith believes that since the wolf populace

Related Documents