Interaction that is limited to the visual aspect allows humans to objectify animals, rather than seeing them as subjects with their own agency; we create a “virtual” reality (Cronon, 1996, p.43). I observed a number of tourists attempting to alter the cat’s behavior in order to obtain a good photograph; with calls and manipulating objects through the fence. Visitors seemed to watch the cats primarily through viewfinders and digital LCD screens, rather than with their own eyes. Once a picture was obtained it was scrutinized and shown to others. Even whilst the people were still in presence of the cat, it was virtually ignored once a photograph had been collected. Photographers were also keen to take pictures through the fence, thus falsifying their proximity to the feline subject. This visual facet reflects a Western position of dominance over animal interactions and the formation of authenticity (Clifford, 1988, p.13-14). A variety of aspects suggest that the format of Las Pumas is tailored towards the visiting modern, Western audience. The signs denoting the animal inhabitants provide local, but also scientific Latin names (cf. Tsing, 2004, p.94), as established by Western zoologists around the world (See Figure 9.).

Figure 9. Signs on the enclosures generally included the local, English and Latin species name, the name of the individual, and some species information in Spanish and English.

Additionally, signs appeared in languages including Spanish, English, German, French and Dutch, catering for the majority of American and European visitors. Despite the primacy placed on ocular interaction at the center, the cat’s ability to avoid visual scrutiny was maintained by the cover in enclosures; “En algunas ocasiones los animales se esconden tan bien en la vegetación que para los visitantes es difícil de observarlos”⁶ (Las Pumas, 2000), a fact which Las Pumas sees as important in providing a natural environment. From my own experience, I have found that many animals do not appreciate being stared at, and will avoid eye contact as they see it as an aggressive stance. All of the cats observed, with the exception of the jaguars, seemed to prefer resting out of sight, or as obscured as possible (see Figure 10.). On a number of occasions I observed Tiggy the jaguar snap aggressively at tourists if a large number were crowded around the corner where he slept. This would generally occur if they were close to the fence or making a lot of noise. Noise and rapid movement seemed to agitate a number of the cats, and smaller groups, or individuals would generally lead the cats to be more relaxed. As an example, I was able to observe Rosita the ocelot only a few feet away whilst she ate; even though she was normally timid and kept to the back of her enclosure. She was happy to feed near me as I sat quietly and appeared non-threatening.

Figure 10. Where’s Bêbe? A margay resting away from observation.

Although the cats could hide, this was generally disliked by tourists, and one of my primary roles guiding tours was to locate the animals in their enclosures. In ecotourist ventures where methods such as feeding programs have been used to bring wild animals and humans together, this has lead to unfortunate behavioral changes, negating the authenticity of interaction (Walpole, 2002).

Animals, especially those in zoos, are often presented as archetypes, representatives of their entire species (Bulbeck, 2005, p. 19). At Las Pumas, the animals were deliberately identified as named individuals, and my role as a tour guide involved telling the stories of how each cat became a resident. This identification with the animals is important for Las Pumas to bring in revenue, as emotional attachments to the cats are manipulated in order to increase sympathy and therefore donations. Where animals are individualized, which is common in ecotourist encounters, they tend to be ethnomorphized (Ingold, 1994, p.10), frequently given modern, Western traits by the modern, Western visitors. Whilst the cats were mostly given Hispanic names, the tourists would often overlay their own cultural morays. Tourists were noted to perceive various unlikely attributes, such as: “He’s smiling for the photo!”, and “yeah he’s happy, look he’s giving you...[the man gives a ‘thumbs up’ gesture]”. Whilst Europeans such as myself have long been fascinated by interpreting the thought of animals (Coy, 1994, p.82), to what extent are we ignoring the animals’ own voice? We must be careful to critically utilize anthropomorphism in constructing our ideas of animal personhood (Ingold, 1994, p.9). I found that those working with the animals, especially on a long-term basis, had an informed idea of the consciousness of the cats as actors with their own points of view (cf. Griffin, 2001). They were also much more aware of non-visual factors of wellbeing, such as how temperature, water availability, noise disturbance and olfactory influences were important elements of the cats’ environment. Even the cats of Las Pumas, with restricted access to their landscape, act on their surroundings, bringing humans to them, and interacting with them (Reed, 1994, p.116). In a way, the very allure of these animals has led myself and others to travel great distance at varying expense and personal hardship, just to interact at this limited level. It is clear that these animals have had affects on our perceptions of them (cf. Guribye, 2001). By behaving in certain ways they have caused emotional reactions and opened up debate amongst their human cohorts. Whilst my presence in the environment no doubt lead to an increased amount of soul-searching amongst the people here, ecotourist ventures are typified by such intellectual and emotional contact with the world. I believe that human interaction with the cats has benefited both parties, at least as entertainment. At a more involved level, I believe that the long-term relationships between the keepers and resident cats (see Figure 15) result in two-way positive emotional attachment (cf. Servais, 2005); which is perhaps more important than grand ecological gestures or character-building adventures.

Figure 15. Keeper and cat.

Inward, Outward and Forward

From my time as an ecotourist in Costa Rica I have learnt much about the nature of human-animal interaction. Desire for interaction is important, positive, and often naïve. However, when the nature of such interaction is viewed critically by those involved, its problematic nature is quite apparent. As Bulbeck suggested, the ecotourist is often guilty about their interaction with the environment (2005, p.185), and I found that most animal enthusiasts and centre staff were aware of the ironies involved in keeping, displaying and interacting with wild felines. Tourists were less aware of how their interaction was limited to a primarily visual experience, rather than an embodied one. Perhaps the cats were more aware of this because of their restricted movement in the environment, whilst they could see and be seen, their ability to act was limited to that which humans allowed, through the enclosures. This physical separation allowed the dominance of humans over the cats, as humans were more in control, especially when the cat could not successfully hide itself from view.

Whilst other animals at Las Pumas received some attention, the cats were stated as the primary reason for most visitors to travel to the park, and more time was spent interacting with them. The smaller felines were seen as attractive, due to their similarity to domesticated cats; yet it was the more unusual cats which received the most attention; the jaguars in particular. Charisma here appeared to be related both to size and deviation. The other large cat, the puma, was seen to be less interesting to North American and Canadian tourists; as one woman said, “Oh, we have those”. Human-animal interaction at Las Pumas occurred at a personal and emotional level, where the nature of the cat and the circumstance were essential in creating satisfaction. Tourists were delighted when a cat would react to their voice or gesture. Perhaps those humans that did seem to form an interactive bond with the felines were better positioned to speak reflexively on their behalf. Through association some insight must be gained; and though translation and comprehension may be delicate constructs, they are most likely to occur between actors sharing an environment, no matter the species.

For my informants, environmental authenticity was important but never fully achieved. Photographs acted as evidence of interaction, making it retrospectively concrete in the minds of the human participants. Animal managers would set up opportunities for interaction, and tourists would suspend their disbelief in order to form the pretence of reality. The cats would additionally help create a valid encounter; in that they were accustomed to such interaction. For these particular individuals the environment was, in fact, normal or at least habitual; making their motivation and actions genuine. At Las Pumas, authentic interaction was achieved every day, but this was between caged and tamed animals, and foreign and controlling humans. The attempt to partake in an authentic encounter with wild animals was unattainable. Although it was realized that such interaction was not authentic, it was more authentic than what was achievable elsewhere; and this was important. Tourists, volunteers and staff were sensitive and reflexive with regard to themselves and in their interpretations on behalf of the cats, to a degree that I was not expecting. Perhaps the increasing popularity of ecotourism and related environmental interest is creating a more perceptive and insightful, rather than consuming or destructive traveler.

This study has encouraged my informants and I to approach humans and animals in a new way; and I hope that it will inspire others to do the same. I believe that anthropology should look inwards, to consider itself reflexively, and to recognize the importance of individual actors as much as society, group and culture. We must also look outwards, away from traditional fieldwork structures and the denial of non-human informants. With these new perspectives, anthropology will be able to move forwards, to become a more interdisciplinary and malleable field, thus maintaining its relevance in the modern world.

Notes

¹          Correspondence should be sent to Sarah J. Wood, Department of Archaeology & Anthropology, University of Wales, Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales, UK SA48 7ED. E-mail: lalande_21185@yahoo.co.uk.

²          The five neotropical wild cats, native to Costa Rica, which were observed at Las Pumas are listed below from largest to smallest. Names are given in Common English, the Latin scientific name (in parentheses), and local Costa Rican Spanish (in single quote marks):

1. Jaguar (Panthera onca) ‘Jaguar’

2. Puma (Puma concolor) ‘Puma’

3. Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) ‘Manigordo’

4. Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yaguarondi) ‘Leon breñero’

5. Margay (Leopardus weidii) ‘Caucel’

³          This is a reference to the Aztec deity Tezcatlipoca, who owned a mirror, through which he could perceive the boundary between the mundane and supernatural worlds. The reflective eyes of cats are often associated with mirrors and supernatural powers (Saunders, 1994).

⁴          Costa Rican’s refer to themselves informally as Ticos (Female: Ticas). This is due to the frequent local use of the ‘tico’ suffix, meaning small, being added to nouns as a sign of affection or familiarity.

⁵          “It is our intention to provide the visitor with an experience where they can observe the wild animals in a natural environment” (Approximate translation from the Spanish, by the author).

⁶          “On some occasions the animals hide so well in the vegetation that, for visitors, it is difficult to observe them” (Approximate translation from the Spanish, by the author).

References

Abram, S. & Waldren, J. (1997). Introduction: Tourists and Tourism – Identifying with People and Places. In Abram, S., Waldren, J. & MacLeod, D.V.L. (Eds.). Tourists and Tourism – Identifying with People and Places (pp. 1-12). Oxford & New York: Berg.

Acampora, R. (2005). Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices, Society & Animals, 13, (1).

American Anthropological Association (AAA). (1998). Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association. In AAA Website. Retrieved January 1, 2007, from http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm.

Anderskov, C. (2002). Backpacker Culture: Meaning and Identity Making Processes in the Backpacker Culture among Backpackers in Central America. In AnthroBase.com. Retrieved January 8, 2007, from http://www.anthrobase.com/Txt/A/Anderskov_C_01.htm.

Bird, K. (2000). Abnormal Behaviour in Captive Felines. In Toronto Zoo Website. Retrieved January 8, 2007, from http://www.torontozoo.com/meet_animals/enrichment/Files/Feline%20Behaviour.pdf.

Bulbeck, C. (2005). Facing the Wild: Ecotourism, Conservation & Animal Encounters. London: Earthscan.

Carbone, C., Teacher, A. & Rowcliffe, J.M. (2007). The Costs of Carnivory. PLoS Biology, 5, (2).

Carrier, J.G. & MacLeod, D.V.L. (2005). Bursting the Bubble: The Socio-cultural Context of Ecotourism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11. 315-334.

Clifford, J. (1988). The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature and Art. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Coy, J. (1994). Animals’ attitudes to people. In Ingold, T. (Ed.). What is an Animal? (pp. 77-83). London: Routledge.

Cronon, W, (1996). Introduction: In Search of Nature. In Cronon, W. (Ed.). Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature (pp. 23-56). New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Csordas, T.J. (1999). The Body’s Career in Anthropology. In Moore, H.L. (Ed.). Anthropological Theory Today (pp. 172-205). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Davies, C.A. (1999). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. London: Routledge.

Dombrowski, D.A. (2002). Bears, Zoos and Wilderness: The Poverty of Social Constructionism. Society & Animals, 10 (2).

Einarsson, N. (1993). All animals are equal but some are cetaceans: Conservation and culture conflict. In Milton, K. (Ed.). Environmentalism: The View From Anthropology (pp. 73-84). London & New York: Routledge.

Griffin, D. (2001). Animal Minds. Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Guribye, E. (2000). “Do They Bite?”: An Anthropological Study of Man-Animal Interactions on Galapagos. In AnthroBase.com. Retrieved December 15, 2006, from http://www.anthrobase.com/Txt/G/Guribye_E_01.htm.

Hidinger, L.A. (1996). Measuring the Impacts of Ecotourism on Animal Populations: A Case Study of Tikal National Park, Guatemala. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Bulletin, 99. 49-59.

Ingold, T. (1994). Introduction. In Ingold, T. (Ed.). What is an Animal? (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge.

Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling & Skill. London: Routledge.

i-to-i UK, (2006). Meaningful Travel: Volunteer & Work Abroad. [Brochure]. (Contact www.i-to-i.com for reprints).

Kellner, S. (2001, August). Narrative Construction of Authenticity in Pilgrimage Touring. Paper Presented at the 96^th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Anaheim, California.

Kitchener, A. (1991). The Natural History of the Wild Cats. New York: Comstock Publishing Associates.

Knight, C.R. (1938, February). What Are They Thinking? Characteristic facial expressions, postures, and movements are the key to an understanding of animal psychology and the soul of animal art. Natural History Magazine, February 1938. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from http://www.naturalhistorymagazine.com/editors_pick/1938_02_pick.html.

Kuntsman, A. (2004). Cyberethnography as home-work. Anthropology Matters Journal, 6, (2).

Las Pumas, (2000). Animales. In Centro de Rescate Las Pumas Website. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://www.laspumas.com/animales.htm.

Lawlor, M. (1994). A Home for a Mouse. Humane Innovations & Alternatives Journal, 8.

Liep, J. (2001). Airborne kula: The appropriation of birds by Danish ornithologists. Anthropology Today, 17, (5). 10-15.

Margulis, S.W., Hoyos, C. & Anderson, M. (2003). Effect of Felid Activity on Zoo Visitor Interest. Zoo Biology, 22. 587-599.

Marvin, G. (1994). Review Essay: Terry L. Maple and Erika F. Archibald - ‘Zooman: Inside the Zoo Revolution’ & Stephen ST C. Bostock - ‘Zoos and Animal rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals’. Society & Animals, 2, (2).

Mellen, J.D., Hayes, M.P. & Shepherdson,  D.J. (1998). Captive Environments For Small Felids. In Shepherdson, D.J., Mellen, J.D. & Hutchins, M. (Eds.). Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals (pp. 184-201). Washington & London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Midgley, M. (1994). Beasts, brutes and monsters. In Ingold, T. (Ed.). What is an Animal? (pp. 35-46). London: Routledge.

Milton, K. (1996). Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the role of anthropology in environmental discourse. London: Routledge.

Milton, K. (2003). Human-Animal Relations: A Response to Franklin (AT17,3), Liep (AT17,5), Edelman (AT18,3) and Peace (AT18,5). Anthropology Today, 19, (1). 19-20.

Milton, K. (2005). Emotion. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 16, (2).

Morton, J. (1999). Anthropology at Home in Australia. Australian Journal of Anthropology, December 1999.

Mullin, M.H. (1999). Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural Studies of Human-Animal Relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 201-224.

Mullin, M.H. (2002). Animals and Anthropology. Society & Animals, 10, (4).

Noske, B. (1993). The Animal Question in Anthropology. Society & Animals, 1, (2).

Noske, B. (1993). Great Apes as Anthropological Subjects – Deconstructing Anthropocentrism. In Cavalieri, P. & Singer, P. (Eds.). The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity (pp.258-268). New York: St Martin’s Griffin.

Noske, B. (1997). Beyond Boundaries: Humans and Animals. Montréal, Quebec: Black Rose Books.

O’Regan, H.J. & Kitchener, A.C. (2005). The effects of captivity on the morphology of captive, domesticated and feral mammals. Mammal Review, 35, (3&4). 215-230.

Peace, A. (2002). The cull of the wild: Dingoes, development and death in an Australian tourist location. Anthropology Today, 18 (5), 14-19.

Peace, A. (2005). Loving Leviathan: The Discourse of Whale-watching in Australian Ecotourism. In Knight, J. (Ed.). Animals in Person: Cultural perspectives on human-animal intimacies (pp. 191-210). Oxford: Berg.

Pink, S. (2000). ‘Informants’ who come ‘home’. In Amit, V. (Ed.). Constructing The Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World (pp. 96-199). London & New York: Routledge.

Poole, T.B. (1998). Meeting a mammal’s psychological needs: Basic Principles. In Shepherdson, D.J., Mellen, J.D. & Hutchins, M. (Eds.). Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals (pp. 83-94). Washington & London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Prosser, R. (1994). Societal Change and the Growth of Alternative Tourism. In Cater, E. & Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? (pp. 19-37). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Reed, E.S. (1994). The affordances of the animate environment: social science from the ecological point of view. In Ingold, T. (Ed.). What is an Animal? (pp. 110-126). London: Routledge.

Rice, J.M. (1994). Zoo Husbandry and Research: An Integrated Approach. Humane Innovations & Alternatives Journal, 8.

Richter, C., Dawson, S. & Slooten, E. (2006). Impacts of Commercial Whale Watching on Male Sperm Whales at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 22, (1). 46-63.

Russell, C. L. (1995). The Social Construction of Orangutans: An Ecotourist Experience. Society & Animals, 3 (2).

Russell, A. & Wallace, G. (2004). Irresponsible ecotourism. Anthropology Today, 20, (3). 1-2.

Salzmann, Z. (1993). Language, Culture & Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Saunders, N. J. (1994). Tezcatlipoca: jaguar metaphors and the Aztec mirror of nature. In R. Willis (Ed.). Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural World (pp. 159-177). London: Routledge.

Scruton, R. (1998). Animal rights and wrongs. London: Demos.

Sellinger, R.L. & Ha, J.C. (2005). The Effects of Visitor Density and Intensity on the Behavior of Two Captive Jaguars (Panthera onca). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 8, (4). 233-244.

Selwyn, T. (1996). Introduction. In Selwyn, T. (Ed.). The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism (pp.1-32). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Serpell, J.A. (2000). The domestication and history of the cat. In Turner, D. & Bateson, P.P.G. (Eds.). The Domestic Cat: the biology of its behaviour - 2^nd (Revised) Edition (pp. 179-192). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Serpell, J.A. (2003). Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection – Beyond the “Cute Response”. Society & Animals, 11 (1).

Servais, V. (2005). Enchanting Dolphins: An Analysis of Human-Dolphin Encounters. In Knight, J. (Ed.). Animals in Person: Cultural perspectives on human-animal intimacies (pp. 211-230). Oxford: Berg.

Tsing, A.L. (2004). Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ & Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.

Trester, A.M. (2003). Beinvenidos a Costa Rica, la tierra de la pura vida: A Study of the Expression “pura vida” in the Spanish of Costa Rica. In Sayahi, L. (Ed.). Selected Proceedings of the First Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics (pp.61-69). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Turton, D. (2004). Lip-plates and ‘the people who take photographs’: Uneasy encounters between Mursi and tourists in southern Ethiopia. Anthropology Today, 20, (3). 3-8.

Walpole, M.J. (2001). Feeding dragons in Komodo National Park: a tourism tool with conservation complications. Animal Conservation, 4. 67-73.

Walpole, M.J. & Leader-Williams, N. (2002). Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11. 543-547.

Washabaugh, W. & Washabaugh, C. (2000). Deep Trout. Angling in Popular Culture. Oxford: Berg.

Weaver, D. (1994). Ecotourism in the Caribbean Basin. In Cater, E. & Lowman, G. (Eds.). Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? (pp.159-176). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Appendix 1. – E-mail correspondence with Wilson.

As you can see, text has not been edited and remains in context. From this, I hope that the reader can gain a more accurate picture of my introduction of the topic and interviewing ‘technique’. Initial contact was made by myself on the i-to-i forum (which is accessible to current volunteers), as a general inquiry to contact other people on the ‘Big Cat Project’.

From: Sarah
To: Wilson
Subject: Costa Rica in March
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007

Hi Wilson

The forum seems to have gone quiet so I thought I'd drop you an email. You must be getting excited if you're starting in February, have you got all your jabs done yet? I just booked an appointment for mine - good job I'm not afraid of needles!

So anyway, was wondering if you could do me a favour and help me out with my project. I'm using my volunteering as fieldwork for my MA, I'm looking at human-animal interaction in an ecotourist setting (sounds fancy I know!). I was hoping I could ask you a couple of questions about what you hope to get out of the volunteering, whether you consider yourself a tourist or an employee while you're there, how you hope to interact with the animals, etc. Don't know if you're open to it but it would be greatly appreciated. I don't have a questionnaire or anything, and I'm sort of thinking these questions up as I go along so it won't take forever!

anyway, drop me an email if you feel like it. Even if you don't feel like being grilled by me it'd be nice to hear from you seeing as I may meet you out there! :)

Sarah

From: Wilson
To: Sarah
Subject: heya
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007

ye sure i could answer any questions that you want so long as they are fairly simple and i can understand them... i was starting to wonder if that forum was working cos i havent herd from anyone else at all have you been in touch with any of the others... wat projects are you heading out on for how long... where you from and all got so many questions haha mite make up a questionaire of my own got to head though but send me an email any time and ill try to get back to you as soon as possible...
Wilson

From: Sarah
To: Wilson
Subject: RE: heya
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007

Hey Wilson

the forum does seem to do nothing for long periods of time. I 've spoken to one person who's out in Costa Rica at about the same time doing, a football project near San Jose, but that's it. I sort of expected more people to be talking as I presume there will be at least a couple of people on each project at a time, and they told me I could only have 3 weeks when I signed up, because they were so crammed full of people!

anyway, I'm just doing the Big Cat project for 3 weeks, heading out on 4th March, I finish at the project on 25th March but I'm in Costa Rica for another 4 days to have a bit of a look around. I couldn't really afford any more than that unfortunately, plus I've got to get back to write up my project and enroll for my final year at uni!

I'm from a little town called Woking, a bit South of London - what about you? - I could guess Irish but hotmail address aren't always the best things to go by!  You're out for longer than me though - what other things are you doing - have you ever been to central / south America before? I've got a picture of a massive costa rican spider on my desktop at the moment so I can get used to the creepy wildlife!  What sort of things are you going to do in your free time? - I must see a volcano, and I'd quite like to do one of those canopy zip line things, and maybe some rafting if I have the money!

Quick question, while I think of it - do you know if we have to bring a sleeping bag or not - I'm trying to bring as little stuff with me as possible!

Okay, I'm basically all questions at the moment! A little bit aobout my project - its for an article I have to write as part of my Environmental Anthropology MA degree. I want to look at human-animal interaction between tourists and big cats. The sort of things I'd like to know from you are...

- why did you choose the cat project, is there anything about big cats / large predators that you like in particular?

- what are you expecting when you're there, do you think we will be able to interact much with the animals?

- what do you think in general of reserves such as this keeping animals and people viewing them?

those are the sort of ideas I'm interested in, any other comments you can think regarding interaction with the animals or why volunteers / tourists want to visit a place like the rescue centre would be great. I'm just looking for opinions and viewpoints really.

Greatly appreciate your help, hope to hear from you soon. When are you going out by the way? I have about 6 weeks to wait but it doesn't feel like long!

Sarah

From: Wilson
To: Sarah
Subject: heya
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007

ye im irish well northern irish anyways from antrim just north of belfast.. im 19 and i left school at 16 to be a bricklayer and now i fancy some time off... i grew up overseas in the phillipines where my parents were missionarys for 14 years so i have some experience with the tropics but not in the americas... i head out on the 3rd of feb for four months the first two doing the big cat project and the next two in building houses for the underpriviliged... figured i could use my buildings skils there where they mite be of a bit more use... i think you maybe should bring a sleeping bag i have an alternative its a native phillipino thing that im going to use in stead but i can always let you know when i get there...

as to your questions

1... i have always been a massive fan of big cats... even from i when i was very young i loved all sorts of large predetors and i always felt worried when i heard that they were all in danger, and i see this as a way of ensuring that i own children have big cats to look at.. i dont suppose it was just the big cats that drew me though, i was interested in any sort of conservation work that was available and this one was free and it was one of my favorites so i thought go for it..

2... As far as interacting with the animals i dont think that we will have much of an oportunity to interact as such. from my understanding they are still very wild animals and therfore quite dangerous i imagine that it will be more cleaning and feeding basic duties like that.. as much as i would like to get closer to the animals im sure it would be better for them and their future release to the wild if we keep a certain distance from them...

3...As far as i know the place we are going isnt keeping the animals just to view them but to eventually release them into the wild... the animals have been takin from poachers and are being looked after untill they can look after themselves on their own. because it is such a small place i imagine it tries to get funds from anywhere it can and if that means allowing the public in to view tha animals then i cant argue... i believe that if any establishment has the good of the animal species in mand at all times then viewing of the animals is fine... the natural habitat of so many of these species is so far depleted that the only place for them to be kept safely and bred sucseccfully is in captivity as unfortunate as it is i think it may be the only way.

hope that answered some of your questions and if there are any more please dont hesitate to ask and if i didnt answer any of them corectly let me know...
good to hear form you agian send me another email when you can if you know anything more about this place than i do i would be much obliged...
thank you

Appendix 2. – My Informants.

The table below lists basic details of my primary informants. With the exception of mine, all human names are pseudonyms, to preserve the anonymity of informants.