3 thoughts on “Nuisance Species: Mostly About Inconvenienced Humans”
Nuisance species? Oh, right. They’re the ones who get in the way and want what we feel we’re entitled to–like the birds or seals or sea lions who happen to live on the fish that we want. They’re the ones who are useless to exploit, whose monetary value is nil or whose heads wouldn’t look good on the den wall. They’re the ones who inconvenience us by cawing too loudly in the morning or digging a hole in the lawn. Can’t have them around. Get the traps and poisons and guns, Mabel, there’s work to be done.
Apropos of this topic, the University of Minnesota press has published a book called “Trash Animals” that has chapters on the various creatures we have defined as worthless: gulls, prairie dogs, coyotes, Canada geese, etc. They also include wolves, but we all know wolves are beyond trash–they are downright dangerous and demonic.
If it weren’t sad and revolting, with deadly consequences, the idea of substandard specimens of humanity defining other animals as nuisances and trash would be downright funny.
I can think of a lot of trash people…, like the ones who wrote “Trash Animals.” Was the tone of the book serious, or were they joking or trying to piss us off, or what?
Actually it is a serious book that details how people have categorized animals, which makes us look like the bad ones. It is actually a good book, and I think I didn’t get that point across when I mentioned it. According to a blurb: “By establishing maligned creatures’ unique place in the contemporary landscape and in our imagination, the contributors challenge us to look closely at these organisms, to reimagine our ethics of engagement with them, and to question the violence with which we treat them.” I mentioned the book to note that a study had been done of how we define other creatures as “useless”or “bad” and then justify our mistreatment of them. Would recommend it.
Exposing the Big Game 
Nuisance species? Oh, right. They’re the ones who get in the way and want what we feel we’re entitled to–like the birds or seals or sea lions who happen to live on the fish that we want. They’re the ones who are useless to exploit, whose monetary value is nil or whose heads wouldn’t look good on the den wall. They’re the ones who inconvenience us by cawing too loudly in the morning or digging a hole in the lawn. Can’t have them around. Get the traps and poisons and guns, Mabel, there’s work to be done.
Apropos of this topic, the University of Minnesota press has published a book called “Trash Animals” that has chapters on the various creatures we have defined as worthless: gulls, prairie dogs, coyotes, Canada geese, etc. They also include wolves, but we all know wolves are beyond trash–they are downright dangerous and demonic.
If it weren’t sad and revolting, with deadly consequences, the idea of substandard specimens of humanity defining other animals as nuisances and trash would be downright funny.
I can think of a lot of trash people…, like the ones who wrote “Trash Animals.” Was the tone of the book serious, or were they joking or trying to piss us off, or what?
Actually it is a serious book that details how people have categorized animals, which makes us look like the bad ones. It is actually a good book, and I think I didn’t get that point across when I mentioned it. According to a blurb: “By establishing maligned creatures’ unique place in the contemporary landscape and in our imagination, the contributors challenge us to look closely at these organisms, to reimagine our ethics of engagement with them, and to question the violence with which we treat them.” I mentioned the book to note that a study had been done of how we define other creatures as “useless”or “bad” and then justify our mistreatment of them. Would recommend it.