Hiker Accounts of Living Among Wildlife on the Appalachian Trail
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wild Stories on the Internet: Hiker Accounts of Living Among Wildlife on the Appalachian Trail Submitted by Katherine Susan Marx to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthrozoology In July 2018 This thesis is available for library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgment. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has been previously submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………. Abstract The Appalachian Trail is the world’s longest hiking-only trail, covering roughly 2,200 miles of forest, mountains, ridges and plains. Each year a few thousand people set out to hike the entire length of the trail, estimated to take between five and seven months to complete. Numerous species of autonomous animals – wildlife – dwell on and around the trail, and it is the encounters that happen between these human and nonhuman animals that are the focus of this thesis. The research presented here is based wholly around narratives posted online as blogs by 166 Appalachian Trail hikers during the years 2015 and 2016. These narratives provide an insight into how hikers related to the self-directed animals that they temporarily shared a home with. Several recurring themes emerged to form the basis of the thesis chapters: many hikers viewed their trek as akin to a pilgrimage, which informed their perception of the animals that they encountered; American Black Bears (Ursus americanus), viewed as emblematic of the trail wilderness, made dwelling on the trail satisfyingly risky; hikers experienced strong feelings about some animals as being cute, and about others as being disgusting; along a densely wooded trail, experience of animals was often primarily auditory; the longer that they spent on the trail, the more hikers themselves experienced a sense of becoming wild. Through an analysis of these themes, it became clear that hikers thought about trail animals as meaning, or representing, something, in the context of their own narrative journey. Yet at the same time, the autonomous animals on the trail were experienced in complex, multifaceted, and sometimes even contradictory ways that succeeded in making them interesting to hikers in ways that they may never have anticipated. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION pp. 7 My introduction to the Appalachian Trail pp. 13 The trail pp. 15 Why hike the AT? pp. 17 A wild life and wildlife on the trail pp. 20 Studies centred around the AT pp. 22 The Trek blogosphere pp. 23 Method pp. 26 Telling stories: Doing narrative research pp. 29 Am I cheating? Blogs as research data pp. 34 The importance of community in blogging pp. 42 Ethics pp. 44 A note on hiker blogging practices pp. 46 Conclusion pp. 48 CHAPTER ONE: HIKING AS PILGRIMAGE, AND WILD ANIMALS ON THE TRAIL 1.1 Introduction pp. 50 1.2 Why pilgrimage? pp. 51 1.3 Looking for wild nature pp. 58 1.4 Walking pp. 63 1.5 Transformation on the trail pp. 66 1.6 The return home pp. 69 1.7 The magic of trail animals pp. 70 1.8 Witnessing pp. 75 1.9 Walking in a woodland wonderland pp. 77 3 1.10 Conclusion pp. 80 CHAPTER TWO: “REAL” WILDERNESS NEEDS A “REAL” PREDATOR: HIKERS AND BLACK BEARS 2.1 Introduction pp. 83 2.2 Bears on and around the Appalachian Trail pp. 84 2.3 Overview pp. 89 2.4.1 Anticipating bears! pp. 90 2.4.2 Expectations about bears pp. 94 2.5.1 Living among bears pp. 100 2.5.2 Dwelling and habituation pp. 107 2.6.1 Encountering bears pp. 111 2.6.2 Hiker interest in bears as self-willed beings pp. 123 2.6.3 Telling stories about bears pp. 130 2.7 Bear necessities: The social creation of bears by hikers pp. 135 2.8 Conclusion pp. 140 CHAPTER THREE: “HE’S SO FLUFFY I’M GONNA DIE!”: CUTE RESPONSES BY HIKERS TO ANIMALS ON THE TRAIL 3.1 Introduction pp. 142 3.2 Adorable wildlife pp. 144 3.3 The Cute Aesthetic pp. 146 3.4 Responding to cuteness pp. 148 3.5 Cute responses out on the trail pp. 154 3.6 Why did hikers respond to wild animals as cute? pp. 157 3.7 The effect of seeing animals as cute pp. 162 3.8 Conclusion pp. 166 4 CHAPTER FOUR: UGLY, SCARY AND DISGUSTING: UNCOMFORTABLY CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH MICE, SNAKES, INSECTS AND OTHER “CRITTERS” ON THE TRAIL 4.1 Introduction pp. 170 4.2 Disgust and animals pp. 172 4.3.1 Shelter mice pp. 179 4.3.2 Disgust, fear, and the perception of shelter mice pp. 183 4.4 Multitudes pp. 190 4.5 Confrontation with a skunk pp. 193 4.6.1 Snakes on a trail pp. 195 4.6.2 The fear and fascination of snakes pp. 199 4.7 Killing animals on the trail pp. 203 4.8 Transgression pp. 215 4.9 Conclusion pp. 220 CHAPTER FIVE: CHIRPS, QUACKS, CROAKS, HOWLS AND “WHAT WAS THAT?”: ANIMAL SOUNDS ON THE TRAIL 5.1 Introduction pp. 223 5.2 The AT as a sonic environment pp. 226 5.3 NPS Natural Sounds Program pp. 230 5.4 Chirps, squawks, songs pp. 232 5.5.1 A little night music pp. 234 5.5.2 What was that?! pp. 236 5.6.1 Hiker sounds pp. 239 5.6.2 Anthrophony and noise pp. 241 5.7 Listening as witnessing pp. 245 5.8 Listening and dwelling pp. 247 5.9 Conclusion pp. 250 5 CHAPTER SIX: BECOMING WILD ON THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL 6.1 Introduction pp. 252 6.2.1 A place that reminds you of your animal nature pp. 253 6.2.2 The geography of becoming wild pp. 257 6.3.1 Embodied animality pp. 261 6.3.2 The animal body in the world pp. 264 6.4.1 Performing animality pp. 269 6.4.2 Becoming wild and performativity pp. 272 6.5 Conclusion pp. 275 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION 7.1 Research conclusions pp. 277 7.2 Research contributions pp. 282 7.3 Opportunities for further research pp. 285 APPENDICES Appendix 1. The Trek Bloggers pp. 291 Appendix 2. Map of the Appalachian Trail: States pp. 301 Appendix 3. Map of the Appalachian Trail: Landmarks pp. 302 Appendix 4. Photographs of the Appalachian Trail pp. 303 Appendix 5. Blog post arcs: examples pp. 307 REFERENCES pp. 316 6 Introduction For people who live in contemporary Western societies, engagement with autonomous nonhuman animals can be limited or close to non-existent (see Berger, 1980; Bulbeck, 2005; Bulliet, 2005; Malamud, 1998; Turner 1996). Consequently, ideas about “wild” animals are formed primarily from cultural sources (which, from bedtime stories to nature documentaries, can only ever offer a pale representation of the “real” animal) or from zoos or organised “wildlife encounters” during which human and animal interactions are heavily managed (see Anderson, 1998; Berger, 1980; Bulbeck, 2005; Curtin, 2005; Franklin, 1999; Keul, 2013; Malamud, 1998; McNamara and Prideaux, 2011; Rothfels, 2002; Schänzel and Mcintosh, 2000). For most of us, our experience of autonomous animals is shaped almost entirely by cultural artefacts: plush toys, Disney films, wildlife documentaries, animal tattoos, 30-second comedy clips posted on social media platforms, charity appeals, taxidermy museum exhibits and breakfast cereal packaging. The notion that our media culture controls and shapes perceptions of wild animals has been extensively argued (see Baker, 2001; Berger, 1980; Bulliet, 2005; Franklin, 1999). Ingold questions whether unmediated perception of the animal is even possible for us. Do animals exist for us as meaningful entities only insofar as each may be thought to manifest or exemplify an ideal type constituted within the set of symbolic values making up the “folk taxonomy” specific to our culture? Or do we perceive animals directly, by virtue of their immersion in an environment that is largely ours as well, regardless of the images that we may hold of them, or of whether we hold such images at all? (1994: 12) For many people, there is such little opportunity to perceive (wild) animals directly, that the folk taxonomy that Ingold refers to is really all they have to go on when 7 thinking about certain animals, and the question, with regard to autonomous animals at least, goes unanswered. Over recent years there has been an increasing sense of impoverishment associated with our lack of contact with self-willed animals (see Bulbeck, 2005; Turner, 1996). This has been accompanied by a rise in modes of tourism focused on the immersion of the tourist in “natural” settings (nature tourism), the experience of nature with a conservation element (ecotourism) and tourist encounters with wild animals (wildlife tourism). These modes of tourism often overlap each other, but all are ultimately concerned with giving the tourist an encounter with “authentic wildness” (see Bulbeck, 2005; Cater, 2006; Curtin, 2005; Dearden, 1990; Fullagar, 2000; Hill et al., 2014; Keul, 2013; Kubo and Shoji, 2016; McNamara and Prideaux, 2011; Orams, 2000 and 2002; Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001; Schänzel and Mcintosh, 2000; West and Carrier, 2004). The engagement with wild animals that this type of tourism offers is often tightly managed, featuring boundaries, fences, boardwalks, site maps, viewing times, feeding times, guides, rangers, crowds of other visitors, educational lectures, as well as strict regulations about what the tourist can do with her body, frequently including rules such as no stopping, no lingering, no approaching the animals, no reaching out towards the animals, no touching, no feeding, no prolonged eye contact.