Reader Annoula Wylderich writes in response to our story, " Lifelike," about a local taxidermy business:
We have few really good publications in the Valley that actually provide newsworthy articles rather than superfluous pages of ads and useless information. I consider Desert Companion to be among them. However, I have been disappointed lately to read articles that help glorify and perpetuate the exploitation of animals.
When I see stories about self-proclaimed “zoo’s” and other revenue-generating animal attractions, I cringe. Unfortunately, the public buys into the owners’ claims of saving animals and helping conservation, when these enterprises are actually more interested in making money off the backs of animals. Quite a few have complaints filed against them with the USDA (which are public records).
The public may not have the foresight to look past the cuddly animals, photo opportunities, or trophy heads adorning walls, to ask some pointed questions. However, journalists who report about these businesses do have the responsibility to look at all sides of the issue when they decide to write these stories.
Your recent Lifelike article in the September issue was one such example. The Werner family, like many other “avid hunters” and trappers, professes to “love animals.” Many of us love our families and friends; that doesn’t mean we want to see their heads on our walls.
The 5% of Nevadans who hunt usually show up at meetings where wildlife issues are discussed, to OPPOSE any measures of more humane ways of trapping and treating wildlife. Any attempts to alleviate the needless suffering of animals are vehemently fought against by these people, and the Werners are at practically all of these meetings. These individuals, who profess to have a love and respect for animals, have opposed adopting a more humane 24-hour trap check time than the current 96 hours. That’s four days that an animal is permitted to languish in a trap, suffering from terror, pain, dehydration, and exposure to the elements and other predators, before the hunter shows up to finish it off. Sometimes, these animals leave orphans behind to fend for themselves, usually not very successfully. Nevada hunters and trappers were just rewarded further with an amendment to an existing law that alleviates their responsibility to have their traps identified. So, if they don’t show up by the required fourth day, no one will be the wiser as to whom the trap belongs. Does this sound like responsible folks who care about animals?
What they care about is the money that their “harvest” brings in, rather than honoring the animal or preventing extinction of a species, as is often claimed. They sell pelts to China, and there’s lot of money in that; apparently, the same is true of taxidermy. If one truly cared about wildlife, there are far more noble and humane ways to express it.
Sportsmen continually mention the need to “educate the public.” Please. If we are to be educated, I would think it should come from those professionals who spent the time, money and effort to earn proper credentials and who have nothing to gain by the exploitation of animals. Hunters declaring that they love or care about animals/conservation is like the fur industry claiming to love foxes. I’ll take my education from experts employed by impartial, nonprofit wildlife conservation organizations or international animal welfare organizations focused upon true conservation and not benefiting from revenue generated by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. Government wildlife agencies tend to favor sportsmen because they are their bread and butter; their manner of “managing wildlife” is questionable, to say the least.
If publications choose to continue printing stories which include self-professed “experts” on the issue of wildlife, at least include the input of those educated and trained individuals who can speak intelligently about this issue. Let’s, for a moment, consider the animals who have no choice and no voice in the matter, while we behave as though we are the only species that counts.
Andrew Kiraly responds:
Thanks for writing, and sorry you were disappointed by the taxidermy article.
I suppose I would agree with some of your assertions if the article purported to be some thorough investigation into the ethics of hunting and its arguable role in conservation. It wasn't that kind of article, quite obviously. It was a profile of an unusual family business that many people are curious about (and, yes, that some find distasteful). The fact that we wrote about it doesn't imply some editorial endorsement or approval, or that it meets some Desert Companion value test, or that we're implicitly vouching for their character or business practices. It's journalism. It doesn't condone, condemn or glorify. But it does acknowledge that people different than you live and work here, and that they might be interesting.
That's the value test, if any. Our threshold for writing about anything is merely that it offers to readers an interesting facet of Southern Nevada -- which could mean that the subject is complex, controversial, poignant or, yes, even distasteful to some readers. But I like to think our readers are mature, educated and broad-minded enough to understand that these subjects may not always comport with their sensibilities and values -- and, moreover, that our readers even enjoy encountering such diversity in our pages. But, apparently, not in every case.
But, I appreciate the added perspective, and we'll consider running your response in our Notes & Letters section in October.