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

Jan E. Dizard (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

The impassioned debate on deer hunting staged here by Dizard, a professor of sociology and American studies at Amherst College, raises pros and cons beyond the fiery local issue. In 1991, after volcanic hearings, Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) officials opened 55,000 acres surrounding the Quabbin Reservoir in Western Massachusetts, Boston's major water source, to a nine-day deer hunt. The first day, 300 eager hunters killed 123 deer; 900 hunters killed a total of 576 by the ninth day. In an agile, well-focused narrative, Dizard explores the intellectual machinations justifying the hunt while delineating the underpinnings of how we view nature. The Quabbin is a spectacular example for this exploration; the woodlands around the reservoir were "completely contrived," eventually developing into an "idealized, tame wilderness." To his credit, Dizard sketches a broad canvas of subfactions, from demonstrators with placards reading "Meat is Murder" to honorable hunters sneering at cohorts slaughtering tame animals. In between, supporters claim the hunt was necessary because deer were eating new growth in the forest that protects the water supply; critics say the MDC wants to continue logging for revenue. Beneath the controversy smolder larger contending views. Should nature be seen as a self-balancing harmony or a challenge to use and dominate? Who decides what is wild? In short, is wildlife management an oxymoron? For those arming with arguments from both sides, this book is indeed mind-stretching and valuable.
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

Absorbing study of an environmental dispute at the Quabbin Reservoir, located west of Boston. In the early 1990s, officials in charge of the reservoir decided to hold a restricted deer hunt. Deer populations had become so large that officials feared they threatened the whole area, considered by many to be "wild." Sides quickly formed for and against the hunt. But the book is much more than a sizing up of groups and positions. Dizard argues that what the Quabbin dispute exemplifies are differing views about the very "nature of nature." One side believed that humans are the problem in most environmental issues and need to be kept away from nature. The other side viewed nature as chaotic, and in need of human intervention. The reservoir officials prevailed, but the dispute in the larger sense is far from over. A solid addition to environmental literature, Dizard's book also provides an insightful look at the conflicts between the hunting and animal rights communities. Highly recommended. Brian McCombie

Product Details

• Hardcover: 200 pages
• Publisher: Univ of Massachusetts Pr (August 1994)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0870239082
• ISBN-13: 978-0870239083
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,030,342 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent look at how complex animal rights can actually be, June 12, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Going Wild: Hunting, Animal Rights, and the Contested Meaning of Nature (Paperback)

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.