Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant: A History of Animal Exchanges and Displays in Yellowstone National Park and the Nation's Leading Zoos

简介：本研究拟在黄石国家公园、国家档案馆、布朗克斯动物园和哈珀斯费里的国家公园管理局档案馆进行档案研究。这样做的目的是帮助记录黄石国家公园和主要动物园进行动物交换的历史，以确定黄石公园如何适应国家动物交换网络，并分析公园如何，为什么以及何时建立这些交换。由此产生的论文，“动物和文物：动物交换和展示在黄石国家公园和国家主要动物园的历史，1872年至1929年，”将提供一个新的视角在黄石野生动物管理和保护的历史，特别是因为它涉及到国家主要动物园。通过将这些做法置于保护和圈养繁殖计划的历史中，它可能会对进步时代保护生物学的起源有新的了解，也有助于更完整地了解美国动物园和自然历史博物馆的历史。知识价值：虽然历史学家们把注意力集中在野生动物保护和黄石国家公园上，但一种野生动物管理和保护策略却没有被调查，这种策略导致了黄石公园、国家动物园和全国其他主要动物园之间的“特殊关系”。这种做法导致了非正式的理解和交换机制，将动物运送到动物园、博物馆和野生动物保护区，在某些情况下，接收动物以换取繁殖和展示。更好地了解国家第一个公园和国家主要动物园之间的这些交流，可以为黄石公园作为野生动物保护、圈养繁殖和公共教育的早期中心的功能提供一个新的、更完整的历史。此外，这项研究将有助于更全面地了解野生动物的公开展示是如何从皮肤和骨骼过渡到生命的；也就是说，从标本展示到活体动物展示（有时又回来）用于教育和研究。更广泛的影响：国家公园历史学家和野生动物管理者都受益于更好地理解过去的管理实践，在历史、社会和文化背景下，它们发生了。如果研究表明黄石公园被视为国家和国家主要动物园的伊甸园，那将有助于科学家和历史学家更好地理解随后的保护政策。如果黄石公园在此期间像动物园一样运作，但在长期内抵制住成为动物园的压力，它也可能有助于管理人员做出更明智的决定，并应对未来公园野生动物面临的越来越大的压力。这也可能帮助动物园重新考虑自己的历史（以及可能的未来），因为它们更好地理解了动物园和国家公园在过去建立的关系。正如詹姆斯·普里查德（James Pritchard）所写的那样，“如果我们不把公园放在历史背景中看待，我们就无法理解公园的管理，也无法希望公园管理变得开明。”

Introduction: This proposes to conduct research in archives at Yellowstone National Park, the National Archives, the Bronx Zoo, and the National Park Service Archives in Harpers Ferry. The purpose of doing so is to help document the history of animal exchanges conducted by Yellowstone National Park and leading zoos to determine how Yellowstone fit within a national network of animal exchanges and to analyze how, why, and when the Park established these exchanges. The resulting dissertation, "Animals and Artifacts: A History of Animal Exchanges and Displays in Yellowstone National Park and the Nation's Leading Zoos, 1872-1929," will provide a new perspective on the history of wildlife management and conservation within Yellowstone, particularly as it relates to the nation's leading zoos. By situating these practices within the history of conservation and captive breeding programs, it may shed new light on the origins of conservation biology during the Progressive era, as well as contribute to a more complete history of American zoos and natural history museums. Intellectual Merit: While historians have focused on wildlife conservation and Yellowstone National Park, one wildlife management and conservation strategy, which led to "a special relationship" between Yellowstone, the National Zoo, and other leading zoos around the country, has not been investigated. This practice led to informal understandings and mechanisms of exchange for shipping animals to zoos, museums, and wildlife preserves and, in some instances, for receiving animals in return for breeding and display. A better understanding of these exchanges between the nation's first park and the nation's leading zoological parks could lead to a new and more complete history of Yellowstone's function as an early center of wildlife conservation, captive breeding, and public education. In addition, the research will contribute to a more complete understanding of how public displays of wildlife transitioned from skins and skeletons to life; i.e., from taxidermied displays to living animal displays (and sometimes back again) for education and research. Broader Impacts: National park historians and wildlife managers alike benefit from having a better understanding of past management practices, in the historical, social and cultural context in which they occurred. If research reveals that Yellowstone was viewed as a kind of Eden for the nation and for the nation's leading zoos, that could help scientists and historians better understand the conservation policies that followed. If Yellowstone operated much like a zoo during this period, but resisted pressures to become a zoo in the long term, it may also help managers make more informed decisions and respond to increasing pressure on Park wildlife in the future. It may also help zoos reconsider their own histories (and possible futures) as they better understand the relationships zoos and national parks have forged in the past. As James Pritchard has written, we "cannot understand the management of our parks or hope for enlightened park management if we fail to see our parks in a historical context."