What are the first places I started to feel friction between my expectations in the story was an around page six or seven? Other New Yorker articles around this time are when it starts you know getting to the meat potatoes of the discussion. It starts to stop talking about the initial story that gets you into the topic and start to get into when the author brings up different sources to really bring the argument to life, but then the story kept going and going and going. I understand that this is about if Mark and Delia Owens methods have gone too far.I had just expected a lot more examples of conservation is you know crossing the hypothetical line in the sand with there conservation efforts. I wasn’t expecting the whole article to be a focus on just their conservation efforts. I was honestly hoping for a lot of different sources because I thought that might be something would be very common. I mean from the name alone it kind of sounds like a lot of people have done this but in actuality is referring to a couple. I mean if the article named Hunted by the Owens And had made it more parent that wasn’t just going to be these two people and their escapades across Africa shooting poachers and flying planes and dropping cherry bombs out of them.
I also expected to be but more ambiguous with how it talked about who is who didn’t go too far, but no we can just go right after Mark and Delia Owens, but in the beginning, it starts talking about them like they’re you know curious scientist who just wants to know about this life. they want to study elephants, crocodiles, gazelles, and, the local ecology. As the article goes on though you start seeing as a couple of cracks in the facade. They set up a scientific research station, but then they start to talk about how it felt like they were the only two people in the universe out there and how it’s where they’re the happiest. Mark actions when he saw poacher shooting wildebeest and decided to dive bomb them with his mono-prop plane at 160 miles an hour. And when someone’s reaction to seeing animals getting killed is to endanger his life and the life of others it’s not really a good sign. After partitioning the Botswana government they were kicked out of the country for interfering with national Affairs after raising attention to the killing of wildlife and the nation did have reasons to do this but it’s still seemed a bit spiteful. They would turn to go to Northern Zambia and the parks there. They continue to romanticize this untouched wilderness even though there are people living in it. They continue to Rejoice at the beauty of life but this time there are a lot more prepared to defend it from poachers and take a much more aggressive stance.
Eventually, after a lot of time has passed at the park they have attempted to build a robust Anti-poacher strategy. They’ve helped arm Scouts that Patrol the parks to protect the wildlife, They started to help the communities in the area which normally help poachers build other ways of generating revenue, raise money from wealthy backers in the United States, and, have started regular aerial patrols. Soon interest grows around the work they’ve been doing in the park. Eventually, their efforts begin to become noticed by mainstream media back in the States and they appear on The Tonight Show and ABC ask to do a piece on their work good we send over camera crew and a producer. When the patrol Scouts around the park capturing footage War there show and then somebody shoots a poacher. The author makes a big effort to find who fired the shot and if the rumor that it was Mark who killed this man. He sued arrives at the cameraman who was filming the whole event who confirm said it was Mark who fired the shot and killed a man. It was a totally unexpected turn when I first read it I thought that it was just going to really be just stood in the third person I didn’t know if he doing this saying that this man committed murder in Africa.
Learn quite a lot from this article I learned that you don’t have to bluntly interject your ideas into an article in order to get your opinion across. That the best way to do it is to suddenly present evidence and tie it into a narrative in order to just give it a much more natural feel. It was objectively much better quality than other articles I read from the New Yorker that I have clearly stated their opinions which is pretty interesting. I mean he could have just said plainly stated in his opinions and said oh yeah these Owens really enter some gray area when giving objectively look at what they’re doing. the author lets the reader come to that conclusion by presenting the evidence.