HOME | DD
NaturePunk β
Retrieving the Arrow
Published: 2012-08-05 07:56:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 20516; Favourites: 1116; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
This was project intended to exemplify humanity's modern disconnection from Nature. The hunter is wearing modern clothes and exists in a modern setting, yet is using primitive weapons and techniques to 'survive' in a world which has been all but destroyed by Man's inability to live in harmony with the planet.The wolf in the image is called Teva. She's my personal headdress. She and her sister were both removed from a population in Southeast Alaska by a friend of mine who works with the State Fish and Wildlife Department in population control.
Once Teva was tanned so that she could not rejoin the Earth, I purchased her to make her into the headdress above. Due to some damage to the leather and a missing rear foot, her hide was not deemed suitable for traditional taxidermy and would be otherwise bound for the fur market to be made into clothing instead.
She is the first wolf I ever mounted, and Iβm very pleased with the way she turned out considering. From start to finish, it seemed that Tevaβs creation from tanned pelt to finished headdress came together like a dream.
Photography by Teddy Anderson. Editing and taxidermy by me.
Related content
Comments: 412
Nowadays we don't need to wear animals furs, much less their heads, to protect ourselves from the cold.
π: 0 β©: 2
Wow, that was so meaningful I think i just shed a tear. We probably don't need table salt either nowadays due to the salt in preserved foods but damn it's so good. We probably don't need bacon, either, cuz that harms pigs. I guess I could get by with some toast instead... wait, I don't really NEED toast, do I... maybe some tofu, yeah, that makes more sense. If I'm wearing a belt doΒ I really NEED suspenders? I think your words just changed my life around.
π: 0 β©: 2
Hell you can literally SURVIVE for years on potato and butter alone you don't need jack shit
let's just take away all jobs and replace them with butter churning and potato farming
π: 0 β©: 1
Sounds good! You know, since animal waste was meant to just rot and never actually get used, cuz, you know, that would make it kinda useful.
π: 0 β©: 1
...I'm sorry I don't have very good comprehensive skills but I'd just like to make it clear that I'm agreeing with you I'm sorry if you got the wrong idea sorry
sorry
π: 0 β©: 0
off-topic, but that was sarcasm at its finest
not saying i agree at all with you, but
I had to read that 3 times lol.
π: 0 β©: 1
How can you not agree? Surely we don't really NEED many things in life... This confused liberal's cry for using animal waste is a call for the reformation of humanity's habits! We can do this, people! Unite! Let dead animals rot where they lay and embrace castles made of tofu!
π: 0 β©: 0
Some humans still use furs every day of their lives to keep warm. It's all a matter of cultural and personal preference, as well as making use of what's available. If I could, I'd use fur and leather for all my clothing, every day of the year, because that is what my ancient European ancestors did. Fur and leather are far better for the environment than plastic-based synthetic fibers used in most cold-weather clothing material today.Β www.furisgreen.com/furisgreen.β¦
π: 0 β©: 0
it is rare that I come across art involving taxidermy that I can actually say I find aesthetically pleasing, and this is one of those pieces! I can certainly tell the effort put into it. and Β Looking at it from an art point of view, the colors come together wonderfully, and I find that the mixing of both primitive and modern themes gives it a very unique feeling. I also admire that high contrast of the skin and mid-background with the darkness of the fur, shirt, and shadows. And that expression is lovely!Β
also, congrats on the DD~
-as as a side note for all the arguments on this page, yes seeing the wolf as clothing may disturb some of you, and I completely understand why, it's also probably not to pleasant for the person who owns this picture to have to scroll through comments and see so many sad people; and as for the "wolfaboo police" quit causing arguments and calling out everyone who inputs an opinion; the comment section is not a place for your silly bickering-
π: 0 β©: 0
Gorgeous headdress, very well done! Makes me want one of my own! <3 Amazing image, as well, congrats on the Daily Deviation!
π: 0 β©: 0
This is awesome, I love the idea as well as how it was Β done!
The colors work perfectly! awesome job!
π: 0 β©: 0
The way she's costumed reminds me somewhat of Princess Mononoke.
π: 0 β©: 1
Congrats on the DD! Beautiful!!
π: 0 β©: 0
like this shot, it's very pretty, but I can't help feeling so sad for that wolf... it kind of ruins the picture for me. Yes, native Americans did things like this, but I feel like in this day and age... why do we have to kill to stay warm any more? or, in worse cases, just as a decoration for a one-time picture? now that its dead and skinned, it now just sits on a wall or in a closet... It used to be a living, breathing creature that kept the Eco-system going and now its just a piece of clothing...
I'm sorry if this is rude, this subject just really upsets me.
π: 0 β©: 6
HI AGAIN FRIEND.
Just gona say a little research might do you some good. Still.
π: 0 β©: 2
And I have done some more research.
Killing wolves, or any animals, is totally avoidable. This out-of-date method of killing to "help" nature is extremely harmful to nature, and costs America tons of money.
Defenders has demonstrated through their nonlethal coexistence project, the Wood River Wolf Project, that wolves and livestock can in fact share the same landscape with minimal conflict. In the six years the project has been in operation, no wolves have been lethally removed and less than 1/10th of 1% of sheep have been lost out of more than 27,000 that move through the project area each summer.
Each year, more than 100,000 animals are killed by Wildlife Services, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the name of livestock protection. More recently, the agency has also been called in to kill wolves and other animals in order to artificially boost game populations for hunters.
But as environmental groups have argued for decades, Wildlife Servicesβ approach is not only very costly but also often ineffective. Further, their shoot-first mentality perpetuates antiquated ideas about predator control instead of encouraging innovative nonlethal practices that allow people, livestock and wildlife to coexist.
"It makes no sense to spend tens of millions of dollars to kill predators, especially in the way that it's done, to the extent that it's done, when it can have cascading effects through the ecosystem, unintended consequences and nontarget consequences," said Bradley Bergstrom, a professor of wildlife biology at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Ga., and chairman of the society's conservation committee.
Might want to do some more research, dear. In case you don't feel like being ignorant, here are some articles.
www.defenders.org/living-wildlβ¦
www.defendersblog.org/2012/05/β¦
www.sacbee.com/2012/04/28/4450β¦
π: 0 β©: 1
> Is told to do more research.
> Googles 'why is wolf hunting bad'.
> Ofc comes up with defenders of wildlife bs.Β
Sweetie I used to be anti-hunting. Then I looked past the 'defenders of wildlife' crap and did real research. Unbiased research. You're only looking for what you want to be told, that isn't researching the issue. Shit I could give you links of people who are so anti-wolf that they want wolves eradicated from the ecosystem entirely, but that wouldn't be helping you with this.Β
You know whats really fucking funny? The fact that you seemed to be against people using animals for their personal gain or for money, yet you give me information from people who do the exact same thing. They exploit wildlife for money. They try to act like they're saving them and then they bring up law suits when they are still hunted. Want to know why they're still hunted? Because people with common sense can usually look at both sides of an issue before forming an opinion or, in this case, making a decision.Β
Don't act like this defenders of wildlife crap gives you a leg up in this kind of argument. It doesn't. It's laughable that you think so. Grow up. Do real research. Don't link me to anti-hunting shit and then maybe I'll take you seriously.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Could you please back up your claims about Defenders? I looked them up and found nothing of the sort about them. I also found other organizations, such as WWF, that also agree with the Defender's view of wolf culling.
Either way, I got my information from multiple sources, including a science-based news site.
π: 0 β©: 1
I could get you several different links on this subject, but I'd be wasting my efforts if you're not going to be open minded about it. Again, doing your own research does you a whole lot of good, because some of this stuff is rather difficult to find. If you really do care about the issue, though, you should be willing to take your time and actually learn something.Β
Instead of being so intent on denying the fact that humans are part of the ecosystem and we do effect it and that we cannot be removed from it. You'll find a lot of people who are against wolf hunting. That doesn't mean that they're right. The grey wolf is not endangered in north america so I'm not certain that's the wolf that WDF is focusing on?
Yeah. Sorry that's bullshit. You got your info from defenders of wildlife. Jfc kid educate yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm sorry, but just because we don't agree doesn't mean I'm wrong. I looked at different sources (science and research based sources rather than hunter/trapper sources) and I don't think my opinion is bull shit.
It's not just about keeping a minimum quota of wolves alive; it's about the "key role" that wolves play in the ecosystem. The Aspen trees in Yellowstone Park suffered substantial damage alongside the decline in the wolf population, as elk ate leaves without any natural predators to keep their browsing in check. The resurgence of the wolf population has allowed the trees to thrive again, which has had a positive ripple effect on everything from streams to beaver and bison populations.
Population control focuses on "having just enough individuals to sustain a species." That's a short-sighted approach for something with such far-reaching implications for an entire ecosystem's health and diversity. No matter what number the Fish and Wildlife Service decides is its minimum number, there will be "environmental costs" that come from the wolf hunts. A real, sustainable solution will require more than a simple endangered/non-endangered quota.
And while the wolf is not endangered, is has been. Grey wolves are extinct in my states where they used to flourish. And yes, WWF is anti-wolf hunting, for the same reasons I am.
You may call this bullshit if you like, but the truth is that there really are ways for us to live peacefully with wolves.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm sorry sweetie, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. You're stuck in your ways of thinking and I can't help you. Take some ecology classes, please. You seem rather bright, but no, you are wrong on this subject.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Lets just agree to disagree, then. I'm curious if you've heard about fladry, though. Fladry is a proven and powerful repellent to wolves. In Oregon, ranchers often use the streamers with other means, like electrified fences and motion-detecting alarm systems that greet approaching wolves with bright lights and Β recorded gunshots. These are nonlethal alternatives to trapping and shooting, and are much cheaper than guns, bullets, etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
But they aren't as effective. Do you know how much land is on a ranch? Do you know how much effort it would take to not only set up fences, but maintain them?Β
Nonlethal isn't always the best way to go. Do you just...not understand the competition with other predators wolves are bound to have on the same food sources, or do you just ignore that entirely? Your logic is just so...horribly flawed.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Whether solely nonlethal means can be sufficient is debatable, too, but some Minnesota farmers are using alarms, guard dogs, even donkeys, and there doesn't seem to be anything about fladry that would make it inherently unsuitable or ineffective here.
But really, this really has to be one of the most difficult issues to address with natural resource management. Reason being is both sides have very legitimate arguments to make, and both sides have difficulty compromising.
I guess to put my point simply, this issue will never be resolved unless both camps learn to compromise, and probably the best bet with that regards lies in somehow negating the financial blow ranchers take from wolves and other predators and eliminating the motivation to their 'hatred' of these animals. Either way, arguing over dA isn't going to do any good.
π: 0 β©: 1
Lmfao wow you really just...Don't know what you're talking about here, darling. You haven't looked at both sides, don't pull that.
π: 0 β©: 0
it's their way of honoring the wolf, dear. trust me, this is much better than having wolf pelts thrown to the ground as if they don't matter anymore! /u\ i respect your opinion, but you should have said, "even though i do not like taxidermy, i really do like the shot of this picture!" instead of ranting and probably offending the artist /n\
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't think my small paragraph hardly counts as a rant :/ simply stating my opinion!
π: 0 β©: 1
oh whoops, sorry there! a lot of times i get facts wrong when i do things like this hah /n\
π: 0 β©: 1
not a problem!
π: 0 β©: 0
I am Pagan, as are my ancestors. They wore pelts in spiritual practices all the time. Just because it's not commonly done in this day and age doesn't mean that it's unnecessary for me to deny my heritage and the beliefs of generations which came before me.Β
If it upsets you, don't look at it. And for that matter, don't wear leather, eat meat, or purchase anything which contains palm oil or acrylic products. You're doing more harm to the environment by consuming these products than I am by recycling the pelt of a long-dead wolf.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
not unnecessary, but you can't be surprised when people freak out.
Sometimes its best to let the past stay in the past. If I dressed up as my ancestors, I would either be a Jew-killing German Nazi or a rich white man that owned and abused about 75 slaves on a cotton plantation. And I'm not even joking
thats not to say I am ashamed of all of my ancestral roots, but people did silly, stupid things in the past, and its best not to continue repeating them
π: 0 β©: 1
So wearing fur is inherently silly and stupid? You do realize that fur is actually more environmentally-friendly than most synthetic fibers, right? And that people still wear fur in many parts of the world because it's a cheaper alternative to plastic-based fibers which is also a biodegradable, renewable resource? What about leather? And meat? Is that "stupid", as well? Most people don't require meat in order to stay alive, so it's just as much a luxury as fur, yet I don't see nearly as many people complaining about that. Educate yourself and do some critical thinking before you pretend to know what you're talking about.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
Wearing fur isn't necessarily stupid. If you killed the animal and used every part of it, then it would be a valid reason to wear its fur. Isn't that what your ancestors did??
But I don't think you did that. So, yes its silly.
π: 0 β©: 1
My ancestors used what ever was available to them, whether they hunted it themselves or not. They purchased and traded furs which were killed by other people all the time.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
yes, it is.
Killing wolves, or any animals, is totally avoidable. This out-of-date method of killing to "help" nature is extremely harmful to nature, and costs America tons of money.
Defenders has demonstrated through their nonlethal coexistence project, the Wood River Wolf Project, that wolves and livestock can in fact share the same landscape with minimal conflict. In the six years the project has been in operation, no wolves have been lethally removed and less than 1/10th of 1% of sheep have been lost out of more than 27,000 that move through the project area each summer.
Each year, more than 100,000 animals are killed by Wildlife Services, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the name of livestock protection. More recently, the agency has also been called in to kill wolves and other animals in order to artificially boost game populations for hunters.
But as environmental groups have argued for decades, Wildlife Servicesβ approach is not only very costly but also often ineffective. Further, their shoot-first mentality perpetuates antiquated ideas about predator control instead of encouraging innovative nonlethal practices that allow people, livestock and wildlife to coexist.
"It makes no sense to spend tens of millions of dollars to kill predators, especially in the way that it's done, to the extent that it's done, when it can have cascading effects through the ecosystem, unintended consequences and nontarget consequences," said Bradley Bergstrom, a professor of wildlife biology at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Ga., and chairman of the society's conservation committee.
Might want to do some more research and be a little more open-minded.
www.defenders.org/living-wildlβ¦
www.defendersblog.org/2012/05/β¦
www.sacbee.com/2012/04/28/4450β¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Defenders of Wildlife has spewed a lot of misinformation over the past several years. I used to support them but changed my mind when I saw that they were more interested in protecting certain species, like wolves, which are NOT endangered, over species which are actually under threat, like black-footed ferrets and the California condor. Funny how an organization which claims to be FOR the animals is only supporting animals which get them the most attention. Defenders of Wildlife is NOT a non-profit organization and spreading news and false claims about wolves has gained them a lot of support from people like you who are too blinded by emotion to see the facts.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I bet if someone made a leather costume replicating ancient armor or clothing you wouldn't bat an eye. This upsets you because the cute cuddly dead wolf face is bluntly obvious. Hunting certainly is connecting with nature, it is nature. The wolf killed animals (of course not caring if he made them suffer, unlike most human hunters) to survive. Humans kill animals to survive, not only for food but also clothing. If you want to go naked out in Alaska and bond with the wolves, eating nothing but plants, go right ahead. We are animals, and like animals we need to kill to survive on the planet.Β The fact that you can't grasp how this is getting close to nature shows that you don't understand it.
π: 0 β©: 0
There's no reason to be upset towards the artist. If you've read her profile, you'll understand that she also doesn't support animals being needlessly killed for the sake of artwork.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I am no upset with the artist, I just found this picture to be a little ironic, as she was stating how we need to get back to nature while she is wearing a wolf's head on her own head. I know she loves animals, but doesn't she know that killing animals for population control is a false goal, and an excuse? Isn't she needlessly killing for the sake of artwork?
And of course I do not intend to be rude or hateful to the artist; this picture really is lovely. I just wanted to say my opinion as I care very much for wolves and nature's well being, and killing them is very harmful.
π: 0 β©: 2
All human ancestors, who lived more in-tune with nature that you do nor or ever will, wore pelts and leather for clothing. Also, population control does work; you simply need to educate yourself:Β www.outdoorsdirectory.com/magaβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
so barriers can't be an option? 
π: 0 β©: 1
Barriers? What do you mean by "barriers"?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
the use of Barriers to Protect Livestock...
π: 0 β©: 1
Wolves are not killed in Alaska to protect livestock. Do a bit more research on the topic, please:Β www.outdoorsdirectory.com/magaβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>