John Muir: Hunting by Proxy and Bromance.

Remember this: Bromance can conquer chasms. By proxy hunting exists.

I was reading several articles of late that spoke of John Muir being against hunting as part of the anti-hunting sentiment. I wondered as I had read Muir’s work before that this wasn’t necessarily true. I wondered if there was  confusion between complete outright derision to hunting on Muir’s part by modern day causes, or if it was Muir’s derision to mass killing of animals and destruction of landscapes in the time period that he lived that brought about his anguish; yet someone was using it for fodder out of context for their rhetoric??

The article was entitled circa 2006, Saluting John Muir’s Anti-Hunting Philosophy with commentary by Paul Watson. Personally, I don’t believe in over-exploitation of huge animals that reproduce slowly. One has to have common sense with that, especially at the rate of pollutants being delivered unceremoniously in the ocean. Watson’s indicated he has resigned from the Sierra Club and points the witch hunting finger at its members accusingly with claims of corruption by evolving into a crass hunting society. The quote that stood out the most to me was this one:

“Yet, who is more respectful of John Muir, I who respect John Muir’s love of nature or Carlson who has no business insulting John Muir with his sport hunting perversion?” (Watson 2006)

Watson goes through quotable after quotable of Muir going with hunting parties and being present during hunts, raging against the murder business but takes part, and goes on to stand in condemnation of hunting itself.  

I pulled out my internet library card and went about the business of looking for the John Muir-Hunting Connection. Did it exist? Could Muir possibly be guilty (by proxy) when it comes to hunting? Yet be excused for this (by proxy) because the arguments against such activities is beyond contempt and pure?

The best place to begin my short-lived search was in John Muir’s own writings. I found the following passages of note:

Exhibit A:

“We stowed our baggage, which was not burdensome, in one end of the canoe, taking a simple store of provisions-flour, beans, bacon, sugar, salt, and a little dried fruit. We were to depend upon our guns, fishhooks, spears, and clamsticks for other diet. As a preliminary to our palaver with the natives we followed the Hudson Bay custom, then firmly established in the North. We took materials for a potlatch, leaf tobacco, rice and sugar. Our Indian crew laid in their own stock of provisions, chiefly dried salmon and seal grease, while our table was to be separated, set out with the white man’s viands.” (Muir 640)

Here we have Muir on one of his many trips, where by way of by proxy, food that was to be eaten was either gathered up before hand, or hunted/gathered at later dates during the trip. Did he take part or did he just enjoy the spoils of the hunter/gatherer moment by proxy? He is not guilty, that we know of by physically participating in hunting, but he is enjoying the spoils of hunting itself through another’s endeavor. Is he torn by concern for the way the animal is going to die before he eats it?

Exhibit B:

“It was a never-to-be-forgotten banquet. We were seated on the lower platform with our feet towards the fire, and before Muir and me were placed huge washbowls of blue Hudson Bay ware. Before each of our native attendants was placed a great carved wooden trough, holding about as much as the washbowls.  We had learned enough of Indian etiquette to know that at each course our respective vessels were to be filled full of food, and we were expected to carry off what we could not devour. It was indeed a “feast of fat things.” The first course was what, for the Indian, takes place of bread among the whites-dried salmon. It was served, a whole wash-bowlful for each of us, with a dressing of seal grease. Muir and I adroitly maneuvered so as to get our salmon and seal-grease served separately; for our stomachs had not been sufficiently trained to endure that rancid grease. This course finished, what was left was dumped into receptacles in our canoe and guarded from the dogs by young men especially appointed for that purpose. Our washbowls were cleansed and the second course brought on. This consisted of the back fat of the deer, great, long hunks of it, served with a gravy of seal grease. The third course was little Russian potatoes about the size of walnuts, dished out to us, a wash-bowl, with a dressing of seal grease. The final course was the only berry then in season, the long fleshy apple of the wild rose mellowed with frost, served to us in the usual quantity with the invariable sauce of seal grease.

“Mon, mon!” said Muir aside to me, “I’m fashed we’ll be floppin’ aboot I’ the sea, whiles, we’ flipers an’ forked tails.”

When we had partaken of as much of this feast of fat things as our civilized stomachs would stand, it was suddenly announced that we were about to receive a visit from the great chief of the Chilcats and the Chilcoots, old Chief Shathitch (Hard-to-Kill). “ (Muir 644-45)

Once again we see that Muir is participating in a great feast that is the product of some sort of hunting and gathering. It would seem by the “Mon, mon” (Muir 645) comment that Muir is enjoying the delicacies of the hunted flesh of animals. Stomach’s full, but where is the condemnation? Could this be a sort of hypocrisy, and if so, why is it that today’s writers are not embracing the good and bad of things instead of weeding out offending moments in others own handwriting to further the modern day cause? Where did his condemnation for the slaughter of animals go? If you read the rest of the passage you find all are belly full and drowsy but having to fight to stay awake because they have to visit with the Chief. Upon reading into his writings, it becomes clear that when Muir wanted something he was not above deception to get his foot in the door. Muir is, after all, human with equal parts fault and accountability. Even in his writings you can see where he approached indigent peoples through a guise of bringing ‘a orderly spiritual way through missionary work’ when he really wanted access to the area to do his studying of it. Muir would later go back after using deception and call the indigent people of one place ‘dirty’ behind their backs after the indigents natives accepted him as friend. This group he treated with a different opinion because they were not seen as cultured or probably smart enough to see through his deceptions. 

Roosevelt on the other hand was a different kettle of fish. He had power and Muir wanted something from him. When you look at Muir relationship dynamics, he certainly is a capable person to get his opinion across if it’s for the greater good of his mindset. With that being said, I do agree that his desire to keep natural landscape and stop the unregulated killing of animals was a good idea. When we look at a minuscule moment in John Muir’s life you will find that he is like most other people. When he doesn’t want to agree to a compromise then he becomes isolated and resentful of those that do not comply. Power, even if it is indirect can only last as long as the person that it is wielded over.

I wanted to take a closer look at John Muir’s magical weekend with President T. Roosevelt. What can we discover about it?

Exhibit C:

“By a strange fatality Muir’s own letter accounts of what occurred on the trip went from hand to hand until they were lost. There survives a passage in a letter to his wife in which he writes: “I had a perfectly glorious time with the President and the mountains. I never before had a more interesting, hearty, and manly companion.” To his friend Merriam he wrote: “Camping with the President was a memorable experience. I fairly fell in love with him.” Roosevelt, John Muir, the Big Trees, and the lofty summits that make our “Range of Light”—who could think of an association of men and objects more elementally great and more fittingly allied for the public good? In a stenographically reported address delivered by Roosevelt at Sacramento immediately after his return from the mountains, we have a hint of what the communion of these two greatest outdoor men of our time was going to mean for the good of the country.

I have just come from a four days’ rest in Yosemite [he said], and I wish to say a word to you here in the capital city of California about certain of your great natural resources, your forests and your water supply coming from the streams that find their sources among the forests of the mountains…No small part of the prosperity of California in the hotter and drier agricultural regions depends upon the preservation of her water supply, and the water supply cannot be preserved unless the forests are preserved. As regards some of the trees, I want them preserved because they are the only things of their kind in the world. Lying out at night under those giant sequoias was lying in a temple built by no hand of man, a temple grander than any human architect could be any possibility build, and I hope for the preservation of the groves of giant trees simply because it would be a shame to our civilization to let them disappear. They are monuments in themselves.

I ask for the preservation of other forests on grounds of wise and far sighted economic policy. I do not ask that lumbering be stopped…only that the forests be so used that not only shall we here, this generation, get the benefit for the next few years, but that our children and our children’s children shall get the benefit. In California I am impressed by how great the State is, but I am even more impressed by the immensely greater greatness that lies in the future, and I ask that your marvelous natural resources be handed on unimpaired to your posterity. We are not building this country of ours for a day. It is to last through the ages.” (Muir 375-76)

Muir was inspiration and advice to a man in power. With this being said lets look at the dynamic of this relationship. John Muir is about saving natural landscapes and wildlife. President Theodore Roosevelt was about hunting and politics. Both in the truest sense of the word were NATURALIST. Here you could say that John Muir desired something and had to convince the POTUS that saving these areas and wildlife was in the best interest of the public. The POTUS, being a hunter and naturalist, agreed these areas needed to be protected. 

Here you have this strange moment where compromise comes about. One side can’t get completely what they want and the other side decides to bend to reason. In John Muir’s sense he wanted a beautiful place he regarded as God’s Work to be preserved and there for future generations. Who would be the responsible party? There is a big difference in the desire to want to save a place and someone actually having the power to do such a thing or being responsible for this protection over a period of time. President Roosevelt hunted therefore hunting needs a place and wildlife. Hunting also is a wish for people participating to be handed along with the responsibility of these decisions to future generations. The inspiration and advice brought the power to a place where the decision was made to act on the part of responsibility, value of such a thing, and common sense. Over time the President couldn’t give Muir everything he wanted.

I believe one of the reasons this camping trip was so important was because both men met in person and through conversation developed a general sense of sincerity on the part of the other. Bonding and love for something will do that to you even if it’s temporarily. There are several lessons to be learned here. If it had not been for this meeting then John Muir or the President may have rebuked the other based on no evidence to the contrary. What would have happened later if by rebuking one only to find out that the person you turned away was a valued asset to you. Individual discriminations can close off meetings and relationships that serve the greater good because of personal prejudices. Sometimes you have to put your personal problems aside and put your grown-up pants on to move forward with people. Burning bridges and creating chasms only causes one to paint oneself into a corner. Fear will do this as well. If you fear something because you don’t know it then go find out about it. Do not let it stay in the unknown or an obstacle because great things are to be had for all. It just takes meeting and coming to agreeable terms where breaking trust is not an option.

In present day you see a lot of deceptive compromise. Anti-hunters are on one side of the chasm and hunters are on the other. If one compromises too much, the side that received the benefit will only pull for more. On my many trips through conversations on social media there is always the stance that I am completely right while someone else is completely wrong. There is also the punishment doled out because people are not connected on the same level. Just on keyboards, in front of screens, with voices in our heads; angry or accusing, and not present on the issue.

When reading articles, even mine, do not be afraid to write a question in the margins; look for proof or understanding. Don’t be afraid to question it for your own sense of understanding.   Be involved in what you read. Just because someone has some sort of power doesn’t mean they won’t eventually misuse it for their own gain or glory. Of course I am a little nobody typing away in the shadows.

Just remember: John Muir didn’t despise hunting so much that he lost his place at the table.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Paul Watson article here circa 2006:
http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2006/04/21/saluting-john-muirs-anti-hunting-philosophy-386

Literature Cited:

Muir, John. The Life and Letters of John Muir. Boston, New York, Chicago: The Houghton Mifflin Company.  (1924). Print. Pg. 640-645

Watson, Paul. Saluting John Muir’s Anti-Hunting Philsophy. April 21, 2006; internet article; http://www.seashepherd.org/commentary-and-editorials/2006/04/21/saluting-john-muirs-anti-hunting-philosophy-386

Primary Product: Artificial Insemination of the Buck.

Image Still from the Movie Chicken Little.

Remember this: Chicken Little yells, “The sky is falling!”

When I first became familiar with the deed of artificial insemination, it was as a veterinary employee. I knew of the birds and bees but not in the artificial sense. This procedure varied in undertaking and complication, depending on the species, size and disposition of the animal. 

In brief, once a request was made by an owner to artificially inseminate it was either done naturally under supervision, or with frozen or warm caught semen. Frozen semen would be thawed then viewed under a microscope to see if there was sperm motility, even though motility doesn’t determine the outcome of progeny. 

Warm caught semen was collected with a sterile collection tube at the end of a sterilized latex funnel while the doctor masturbates the dog after exposed to a receptive female. 

Once the semen was collected, it was inserted with a plastic pipette into the uterus of the female then the female is made to stand on her head to use gravity at its best for a period of time. As for watching this procedure, while the male doctor got on his knees seemed to be quite emasculating, especially if the staff was all women. I would think as a man you would definitely have to be secure in your manhood. I won’t lie; there was snickering from the female camp.

This also reminded me of the time a Veterinarian I worked for had a sight hound he wanted to breed. The female was inseminated. When the DNA tests were done to verify the father, the report came back the intended was 98% not the father. Lucky for him, the biological donor was a better sire.When you have people that are not licensed or educated in how to perform such procedures all kind of things can ensue i.e. fraud.

I will not get into the details of Artificial Insemination. The goal is to attain quality progeny in numbers in regards to success rates. Genetically speaking, each animal in a litter or birth will be genetically unique unless you are cloning. The idea here is how many babies you can get to capitalize on financially.

The benefit for artificial insemination using deer would be for conservation and restoration if some dire disease, natural catastrophe, or other affected the deer population in a negative way towards extinction. Other benefits are: To influence trophy antlers, improve genetics in a herd while discouraging excessive inbreeding, breeding for quality characteristics of meat by-products, and the knowledge gained by scientific inquiry. 

When you consider the previous article on trophy antlers, you then start to think what about those breeder farms. Bucks and doe are in an isolated environment where the owner is selecting certain genetic lines of meat, antler velvet, by-products, quality hunting specimens, or giving people what people want.

The other night I had a conversation with another female hunter where she said she hunted deer for the meat because of its quality. I then thought without asking her, does she really mean that she prefers free range deer over genetically farmed domesticated deer? 

This is a good question to ask because the international trend right now is the denial of genetically modified crop farming in countries. The outcry is against GMOs. This could eventually happen in deer farming with regulations where deer are over a period of time, altered to keep up with the supply and demand while replacing beef and chicken as dominant food sources. 

This replacement will be based on the knowledge that deer meat (at this time free range animals) are healthier. What happens when the deer are no longer free range? Can they have the same value or meaning to a hunter when they are like Bessie the Cow or Dorothy the Sheep?

When you consider the undesired buck that has been set loose on the farm’s allocated game preserve, you already know this isn’t the choice deer. Choice deer are kept as breeding stock so you are getting second best as it trickles down the deer’s hind leg.

I then asked myself, what would my feelings be when I had to decide on choosing between deer in the wild as a free agent and someone in agriculture deeming the beloved quarry nothing more than a primary product.

I was reading the Updated June 2012 Deer (Venison) Ranching Profile on the AgMRC website where it is disclosed that the main markets are upscale restaurants and processed sausages. Not only is the agriculture industry picking and choosing to get what one Veterinary told me is the cream of the financially consistent influx of product service, but this primary product is being introduced on a plate by a chef that knows how to make the most of quality meat for return service even on a pricey market. I refer here to the restaurant I saw on television that has flavored foam at insane prices because it is advertised as gourmet.  

Just as the selection of meat genetics is driven from the farm to the plate, so is the selection of the person eating the food. By choosing to eat this meat you have been targeted as a resource for money much like the deer is for by-products. Reality of life.

I also read that these farmed deer are disease resistant. If a deer escapes, the farmer must immediately retrieve the deer. Why the hurry? If the deer is disease tolerant then surely it can’t bring a disease back to the herd. Or can it? We could reference indigent people here. Early explorers brought small pox to the indigent people because their genetics was isolated away from having the immunity of their foreign counterparts. Could the reason they are not getting sick is: The deer herds on the farm are isolated away from wild populations and co-mingling?

There was also positive reference on nourishment.

If I lived on a farm as a deer and received nutrition from a source daily, I would be efficient at converting food. 

My experience with my own independent wild herd can be validated through the fact they can strip a four acre plot of everything leaving only the twigs and vines behind. This is apparent when deer like to stay on one plot because that is what they know and all the surrounding plots have been removed of their forage to make way for agriculture. These wild deer do not have a timed feeder to eat from.

We have seen pictures of bucks referred to as monster or franken-deer; these huge massive bucks with overtly trophy racks that seem to be God's gift from heaven only to find out some human pulled out his chemistry set and started up the centrifuge.

I wondered if I could find an example to contrast humans against deer. Could this be a case of questioning whether farmed Super Sires are actual quality bucks, or have impressive physical traits that are short lived because they are going to die by the bullet.

What about the by-products of domesticated deer harvests?

Let’s jump in the AOFH time machine for a jaunt to a not so distant past (12 Dec 1935) in Hitler’s Germany and compare the Nazi Lebensborn Program. This program was birthed due to high abortion rates, declining German births, and promoting Nazi eugenics. 

Here you have the agreement and protocol of persons of unblemished Aryan ancestry could only procreate with racially fit women. Racial experts would examine the medical history and family lineages for certain qualities and breed a racially pure Germany. Maternity homes were run much like deer farms where women are bred to selective sires, be taken care of, to  give birth, and progeny managed through adoption or some other nefarious use.

What makes humans quest for such? Is it money, greed, curiosity, or more?

Let’s look at the crazy mind behind this: Heinrich Himmler-crazed chicken farmer at large. Is it really a short step off the deep end? Himmler was obsessed with his experiments to breed pure white chickens while running a poultry farm before World War II. Himmler’s initial intent as far as we know was: Not to experiment on humans (who knows for sure?) I question this because the Germans were siring blond, blue-eyed children. Ultimately, it was assessed that all this breeding for a pure German race to replace human dogs of war was found to be less than expected. Because Himmler couldn’t directly manipulate the genes, the crap shoot began. 

The outcome was less than desirable specimens that were not considered agents of a Master Race. Undoubtedly the intent was there. I guess when Genetics deviates from making sense to blatant evil schematic depends on the Agenda it is based around. Otherwise, could we assume that all these Caucasian blue-eyed blonde babies were no more than the efforts to get a pure white chicken? Could we say that this is the agenda of Super Sires? Goal-wise, is it to breed a huge buck with enormous scoring antlers for esthetics only?

When you compare and contrast, I am not pointing out that all deer farmers are Lil’ Himmlers. It’s just a weird sense of breeding programs and what the inevitable desired outcome is. I wondered if farmed domesticated deer should be totally taken out of the schematic of hunting because the deer are not wild. They may have come from wild stock but eventually with all things domesticated the physiology of the deer will probably change due to de-evolution or evolution. 

I went to a seminar by Spencer Wells where he reiterated that the human jaw was shorted with the advent of agriculture over a period of time. This could happen to deer. Maybe? You’ll have people promoting this sort of domestication of deer for their own financial gain and not propagation of species, which is being done a lot in the United Kingdom and other places,  if you go by social media articles and conversation.

By the AgMRC’s Updated June 2012 Deer (Venison) Ranching Profile value of livestock was $111 millon because they  are using low numbers at high prices.

As far as business development goes, when the ideology of deer farming being three times as profitable as traditional livestock, you can see where this is being pushed as an option on the plate or elsewhere. 

Deer farming breeds all kinds of deer merchandise. The money train keeps rolling along the tracks. The AgMRc even denotes that farm-raised deer are a livestock operation where deer are considered livestock. If this is true then deer become owned. I thought that was one of Theodore Roosevelt’s ideals is: No person should own wildlife but yet…..here it is. 

I have read in the United Kingdom that estates own wildlife but here no one owns the wildlife running free. Do we want to become like the United Kingdom where the wealthy privileged gets to dictate to the hunter that the wildlife is their property?  Does this ownership drain away the ethos of hunting to some degree by limitation of availability to hunt? Eventually will the wildlife disappear only to be found on farms with a tag in their ear, a laparoscope in their gut, and people seeing the animals as “OPP?” You know what I mean?

On a final note, if you have someone with an agenda that will improve their lifestyle as a part of the economically privileged elite, while they blow scads of smoke up your rear end for their gain by saying how great something is, then you buy into their scheme is this like drinking Snake Oil? Or is Serfdom on the horizon?

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Referenced Internet Links:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1111170/Stolen-Nazis-The-tragic-tale-12-000-blue-eyed-blond-children-taken-SS-create-Aryan-super-race.html

http://theodorerooseveltinthebadlands.com/html/documents/TR_and_conservation.html

The Deer Farm of Dr. Moreau

 

Remember this: Steel has to be tempered to make a sword that is effective in combat, beautiful to behold, lethal and to be passed down; much like ancestral DNA.

 

Most of my life it has been men’s pursuit to get a dream buck with a worthy set of antlers. Back in the day the first question asked was, “How many points?” Now it’s to pull out your measuring tape to get the exact dimensions like you’re planning to build a bird house. Of course the allure of bagging a big buck came with a back story of his ability to subvert the hunter on numerous occasions while screwing over Death until the buck meets his final untimely end. To some hunters it’s the meat not the antlers but the antlers are still there like a crown up the buck's head. History has proven many people have fought and died for or against a crown.

In the past and present bucks were at liberty to breed with the doe of their choice in the wild. If the buck could avoid getting killed to live another season then the antlers picked up more points and size. The present day doe see a different kettle of fish being served with the adjunct of farmed hunting preserves where bucks are used as Super Sires to select herds. What was the nuance of the large antler before these hopefully ‘pre-determined antlers’ came along? What did antlers back in the day represent to the person that hunts? How has this mentality changed or been redefined? Does anyone care as long as they have ‘a monster buck with a nice rack’? Questions. Questions.

Pulling out the old AOFH measuring tape, let’s see if planned antler size through breeding or genetic modification is different or the same as Made-In-The-Wild antlers. Could it all be preference, a sign of the changing times, or just irrelevant in the face of a bullet?

First I would review Made-In-The-Wind antlers:

“Large antlers represent to the hunter the animal’s success in surviving years of threats, including harsh conditions, challenges by conspecific males, and the predatory efforts of previous hunters. The hunter’s sense of being, developed from his exercise of domination, is felt more fully when the victim is himself imbued with power. The victim must be seen as powerful for the hunter to feel manly and alive in his conquest; thus hunters construe it elaborate rules of fair chase to keep the power difference between hunter and hunted from appearing absolute.” (Luke 94)
Do you really see this when applied to farmed deer for food, agritourism, or trophy hunting? No. That buck lives the life of Riley.

Luke contends that it’s a series of events that shapes the ambience of the buck with his antlers as a visible badge of courage and longevity to adversities that come. These adversities being overcome are a testament to the power of the buck for his survival skills. I do think Luke didn’t word the above so well because a victim that is imbued with power will certainly not make a person feel more powerful. Victim is a poor choice of word because bucks are not going to come out with a white flag and declare, “Take my life please.”  Worthy opponent might have been a better option. It would be more substantial if the hunter is working a fenced farm or totally baiting out the deer. Victim screams unsuspecting. Most deer suspect something; if they are wild.  This would bring about the sense of power of the buck being on an equal playing field with the hunter because the squirrelly buck could get away. I do take into consideration that hunting is filled with technological gadgetry and to some degree doesn’t make it sporting. In regards to survival the buck could be near death during ruts, starving and becoming dehydrated while fighting off other males for a shot at a female. When two bucks fight over a doe and lock horns it gives new meaning to ‘over my dead body’.  Nature has been on its own for millennia where reproduction is concerned.  It’s called evolution and survival dictates life will find a way as Jeff Goldblum states in Jurassic Park.  Impatience and a need to control causes people to start messing in things, the fact that no cares, or was given how you now have to figure out a way to save something from extinction. There are other considerations though.

As I gave thoughtful investigation to this a new issue arose; the manipulation of buck progeny through Super Sires to hopefully breed impressive antlers within a certain buck score. Also the way in which these Super Sires and progeny are treated to get the best and desired results in antler scoring.

Could this be the new Island of Dr. Moreau? Of course Dr. Moreau was playing God by creating human crosses via vivisection but the concepts of moral responsibility, hunter identity as it relates to wild versus domesticated deer stock, and human interference came to mind.

I looked around for some deer breeding farms. I will admit there are beautiful well-kept bucks with impressive antlers. Doe and bucks are kept in fenced, covered shelters, handled regularly, fed proper nutrition, dewormed, and treated like domesticated cattle ear tag and all. Some of the conversational jargon going on in forums was progeny having a certain percentage to sire where antler scoring, mass per age, antler expedited growth in shorter time frames, and character.  Of course the whole push to do this sort of thing is to cast a trophy antler/meat in the fires of breeding and genetics while slapping a $9000+ price tag on that fuzzy pointy end. Engineered dream buck of a lifetime carries a hefty price tag. I wondered if you could get out cheaper hunting public lands with a tag for a Made-In-The-Wild buck. Which one carries more sentiment? Does this make me a purist to think maybe this isn’t such a great idea or over the long run are they really selectively breeding and not for the suppression of disease and pestilence? Given also the fact that unless you are inserting select alleles onto a genetic code to get a desired result just performing animal husbandry through selection of physical desired traits will not always get you what you desire. It is still a crap shoot.

I guess in the end the question is if you had to choose between Brawny Buck and Metrosexual Buck; which one would you chose based on the information the deer are living completely different lifestyles.

In reflection this is one of those strange moments when a person who hunts is standing at the crossroads of animal activism, hunting, science, and personal belief. On one hand the huntress can ask herself would she rather hunt a wild game animal at liberty that was not interfered directly via humans or hunt a buck that was engineered for certain physical qualities while being raised in a domesticated situation that lead up to its death in less than noble fashion.  I would submit on one hand some would argue a buck is a buck. Luke points out that this engineered buck may make the male hunter feel less than manly due to the circumstance. Others would say just shoot it already. If science has given humans the ability to sequence the genome of a deer and it is a reality that genes can be altered and manipulated for requested outcomes as far as physical characteristics go (as it pertains to bucks); what are they doing to the doe? Where is this all leading to? Have we been down this road before with beef, chicken, and fish? Do we not ever learn? Dr. Moreau used vivisection on animals and humans. Scientists are using it now on deer and everything else. The only concern I have with this is the effect it will have on the defining facets of hunting. Selfishly manipulating the beast can sully the quality of the hunting act by supplanting domestication with the wild. Does this mean I can walk out in a field, shoot a cow called Old Bessie, and say it’s the same thing?   Is it worth engineering a deer in captivity for a nice trophy mount on the wall when you know where that head/buck came from? Certainly not the wild: maybe from a petri dish or super ovulated ovary.

 

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

 

Literature Cited:

Luke, Brian. Brutal Manhood and the Exploitation of Animals. Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. 2007. Print. Pg. 94.

 

 

On The Edge of a Southern Forest

Remember this: When you take something for granted it becomes extinct forever or disappears until you regard it with respect. Nothing is an endless resource if it’s not honored, nurtured, or revered. Not even you.



I was trying to talk myself out of going to this appointment. I was being lazy and avoiding. It was an appointment that would probably last under thirty minutes. It was slightly rainy but after nay saying for about four hours I decided to go. My truck was having problems so I borrowed another. I left for my appointment which lasted only thirty minutes. The person I was seeing was very pleased with my progress and told me great job. I left. On the way back toward the interstate I was thinking how silly I was for being lazy. I wanted to stay at home to hide in the house. I was driving down this country two lane highway which abutted a high bank on a river that was loaded with hardwoods. Just before getting to this area I looked over in this field covered in green on the fringe of a group of pine trees. I saw a dark turkey. I could see him good enough because the chest was gold colored. I then thought what did a momentary vision of this turkey bring to me? How did my seeing the turkey apply to my situation at that time or in the future?

This turkey was on the edge of the woods undoubtedly grazing for bugs or seed. Wild creatures like soft curves.

If I were a bird that others preyed on I would stay just near the edge of the woods so I could make a break for it if something came my way that wanted to make me dinner. At that moment the turkey looked pretty relaxed. It was also by itself or so it always seems while his companions are in the tree line.

Turkeys where I live disappear late in the evening when they are breeding to go into the woods where they begin to nest. Most get up in the trees but will be stealthy and quiet. You may walk right under them and not know it if you don’t know that is where they stay. I have also seen turkey herds migrate from a middle area of farm land situated in oak groves then move deeper into a swamp/grassland riddled by hardwoods later in the summer. I have seen them walk right through a swamp that is moist picking worms, grubs, and bugs all the way to the other side. I have seen turkey crouching down in a thicket because the hawks can’t get them and its good cover. They can see you either way so terrain makes no difference to them. There is always a sentinel lurking where you can’t see them. It’s when they are solitary that you are more apt to strike them down. I have seen turkey fly up in trees, walk up hill, and downhill or crawl on their belly. Deer do this to.

Turkeys are prone to imprinting where they identify with their own kind and can’t be reversed once done. Baby poults learn to freeze or hide beneath the mother. This can be applied to people that do not learn to act in healthy ways within a social group. These people may tend to feel out of sorts with the others basically because they do not know how to be as the others are. This doesn’t mean sacrificing individuality but more of a social interaction that brings about happiness and camaraderie. As a healthy person develops they will know the difference between safety and harm but some individuals only know how to react to a constant fear whether it is real or not by this ‘freeze’ mechanism. Of course there are the other two options of Flight or Fight which freeze has been added. When you watch people you can see this in extremes in the unhealthy individual. Does this mean they are crazy? No. They just need someone to mentor them and reteach them something they may not have learned appropriately in the beginning because they were taught by adults or others that didn’t know themselves. One can see where dysfunction is pass down through families. Once you are enlightened by someone or your behavior has become so disabling-you seek help for direction on how you can solve this problem yourself. It will not work until the seeker decides there is something amiss and needs change. Babies learn and it is from the parents and family first. If there is an existing social discretion, that is where the babies are first exposed. If there is no one to help them learn how to interact with others not already in their set group of people they feel as if they are outsiders walking in a world of unapproachable and potentially harmful strangers.

With turkey poults by the second day they are performing what would be considered the adult characteristics of feeding, movement, and grooming behaviors but still learning. This is because there is always the potential for predators. Human people do not have this worry. Because of the passing down of dysfunctional behaviors from parent to child the likelihood the parent will always perceive the child in an adult way is likely. How many times have children been put in situations where they are to act as adults or make decisions like an adult would? Maybe they are not ready? Some would argue that ‘my parents did that to me and I didn’t die’ but when you look at the train wreck or depressive life they live it will soon be reflected in the life of their children unless they decide to seek some guidance to have a better life. Children usually internalize their confused feelings that eventually come out as explosive confrontations or outright ignorances of their feelings. Most parents disregard or dismiss their children's problems because they don't see the belief that the child thinks their situations are stressful or serious versus the adult's interpretation of it. These days children are pushed quicker to learn because of the competition element of life, learning, and money making. They enjoy little of their childhood unless they have a parent that thinks that is not a waste of time or put adult demands on the youth. People learn how to develop in stages. If one of those stages is disrupted or skewed the mental and physical health of the child may be at risk for things like depression, suicidal tendencies, and lack of identity. What if you were a turkey that hatched somehow and your parent died then you had to figure out what it was to be a turkey while your turkey herd did not accept you and drove you off? Or you never saw yourself as a turkey at all? I can only imagine how confusing that is for people in general trying to find their way in the world.

Turkey poults go through rapid development and they develop a series of survival mechanism. People do this to and acting as the baby turkey bird is one of them. It keeps you safe from threat or at least a false sense of security. If I don’t move I won’t get eaten. Then again depends on which brain chemical you experience. You could fight or flee. Who knows what you’ll do because this optional mechanism could change depending on the level of the threat.

I read that habitat is key to wildlife survival. That goes for people to. If you are living in a poisonous habitat it is going to depress you, ruin you, hold you back, or even kill you.

You have to learn this concept. The crux of Your personal management. You require five things at most.



1. Food

2. Water

3. Shelter

4. Space

5. Arrangement


Turkey have different areas for different life stages based around seasonal habits. If your habitat sucks feel free to move in and out of it. You moving around will put you in a better position to meet the people that can help you or at least support your endeavors. Turkey like to go to the clover areas. Find the area that will feed you and support your creativity, happiness, or calm. If your home or work habitat is cluttered, dirty, or the ‘anger area’ it is not conducive or productive to you. Its distracting and could drain the energy right out of you. Do as the turkey. Find that green field where you can relax, strut around, and show people what you are made of. Be glorious! Stomp your turkey feet and thunder like the thunder chicken. Be badass.

The first weeks of a poults’ life is when they are most susceptible to predators then it could be safe to say that the early years when children are in transition between child and adult maybe the most crucial. They don’t know who ‘I am’ therefore could be mimicking other children that are confused themselves. That is why adults should mentor them. Teach them the ropes where they are functioning adults that can sustain other would be adults. Everyone is a parent and a teacher regardless of biological affiliation.

If a turkey is smart enough to pick a brood site that encourages the poult to thrive based on what that habitat can provide as nourishment and ease of teaching while the adult birds are monitoring the poult themselves is genius. These older birds will pick an area where the poults can act as ninjas moving through grasses and shrubs while invisible to predators and unprotected by the older birds so they can learn to act alone versus running gang busters through an open field.

Another aspect the turkey can teach you is to ‘remove your predators’. Predators are people that can aggravate you, make you physically ill, and eat you out of happiness and home. Remove these people. They will not change if they do it will be well after you invite them to leave you because that is their wake up call.

I believe Turkey should have been the Choice bird of the country. The turkey is called the Earth Eagle then why not? This bird is associated with Mother Earth. In my readings the turkey has been called the Give-away Eagle due to tribal members bestowing all possessions to and makes others sacrifice to help the people. Those who claimed more than their due was regarded as selfish and those who were poor or feeble were treated with honor. Turkeys have always represented abundance and fertility where one must give gratitude for your life in general.

I remember the first time I saw full turkey feather regalia. I was at this really small local pau wau in August. It was nestled back in this wooded grove. In the center was a circle made of hay bales with an entrance in one way. You were not supposed to cross over the circle but only go in at the entrance. Several men were dancing around but then this tall man came in and started dancing around by himself. His feathers seem to move with the beat of the drums. His face was painted black and white while his turkey feathers moved about like water. It was awe inspiring that turkey feathers had a second life.

I googled to find these words tacked on to the noble Thunder Chicken:


Pride

Abundance

Generosity

Awareness

Virility

Fertility

Sacrifice

Foretelling

Havest

New beginnings

Cycles

Preparation

Renewal


I usually take the odd random sighting of animals, birds, reptiles, fish, and plants as some message (where it comes from doesn’t matter as long as you get it). I was thinking this was one of those moments where I should be grateful for whatever I have been blessed with whether it is good or bad. Either way, I will get some lesson out of it. I read that it is also a message to express strengths and brilliance. I do want to be aware of how my life is lived from this point on. There is no need for me to suffer or lack human interaction. If I see someone that needs help or direction I have experience to offer if they want to take it. Nothing much was ever done by force except more fighting. I would hope that seeing this Thunder Chicken means that there will be better days on the horizon for me and whomever I touch. If I am about to cycle into new beginnings then bring it on. I have been preparing for quite a while trying to be patient so that moments of renewal will come to me and others even though we as people have to sacrifice a lot to get to a livable point in life.

It’s time to show our plumage and reveal the true self.

Written by:  W Harley  Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Online Media, Personas, and Betrayal

 

 

 

Remember this: It’s easy for people to insinuate that you are a questionable liar. It is the personalities, by their own hand of self-destruction, who have something to hide. It’s called true nature.

Disclaimer: There is no reference to names because this post is not directed at harming any person or group. It’s an example of how followers in hunting, shooting, and fishing can be betrayed by famous or well-known personalities in the hunting, shooting, and fishing industry by verbal discourse or hidden agendas.

We live in a time where there is more anger and little things are blown out of proportion and making humor at other people’s expense is an outrage. Other peoples expense….we all do it but everyone thinks they are not guilty. Can a person making fun at other’s expense become enraged when it is reflected back on them? Can a person find a snake in the grass in terms of their online life? That was a good question.

Sometimes people in their quest to question or point out the imbalanced strata of social structures shoot first and ask questions later so to speak. Clarity on intent would be the note of the day there but when people are unclear of the intent behind it before you can explain they no longer want to hear your mewling. Is this just to ponder? Do we want people to be perfect or our perfect idea? Do we lead ourselves to betrayal and distrust? Has mistrust and betrayal been placed unintentionally in a place it should never had been in the first place? Are people in hunting media breeding betrayal and mistrust through their own actions? What can be done about this? 

I have often watched people who become popular on media and found it fascinating. Expectation wise they are consistent in their portrayal of the personas they exude which is actually a true reflection in sections of who they are. Other personas tend to be a façade eloquently built that is not the actual persona but an underlying image to draw in followers for some fame or capital gain. The problem here is not tasking a proper Public Relations team to separate your personal life with a public personality. All too many times when a façade is built, maintaining that façade become increasingly hard for the perpetrator. You will also find this in charismatic leaders. Eventually you will see them crack or spring a leak of their actual selves because they begin to have problems with internal conflict or control based around being liked for what they are not or at least more than what they are limited to. This personality might be finding it hard to maintain the façade to control followers.

This is the same for personalities in the hunting, fishing, and shooting areas. When following such personalities you desire them as people to be consistent. You perceive your interaction towards them to be one where you are supporting a positive theme while not being aware of being used. When the personality deviates away from previous behavior, thought or action the follower or viewer may become disillusioned or betrayed by the display they are now viewing.

If followers are supporting you based on a theme it may be a good idea to keep with that theme. Overtly sharing oneself in a way that belittles cultures, races, handicaps, objectifies groups, lends hate speech toward specific groups,  or sexual orientation is never good. Also doing this as an exertion of anarchy only furthers the shattering of the social image one has conceived for the viewing of other people.

With this being said you have individuals that no matter how vulgar or ridiculous they act toward other people or themselves, have constant followers that will support them. Why? I think of Robert Downey Jr. or Brittany Spears, or Paula Deen as a good example of a person that made mistakes then redeemed themselves. People like watching train wrecks and chasing after the fire truck or ambulance. They will stand with their phones while people are dying to get a picture. 

What about those followers leaving the scene of the person who has now crashed and burned? How do the betrayed feel?

You will find the sense of betrayal in relationships where contracts that are obvious, unwritten or unspoken based on the subject matter. I once worked for an employer that told me when dealing with consumers; if you insult one, that customer will not return or say anything about being insulted. It’s this one person that starts telling his ten friends about his/her bad experience and then that in turns spreads to twenty more people and so on.

“The betrayed experience powerful sensations of violations; they feel used and damaged. Betrayal, however, elicits more than strong feelings. Psychologists offer clinical evidence attesting to the devastating effects of betrayal. Betrayal acts as an assault on the integrity of individuals, affecting the capacity to trust, undermining confidence in judgment, and contracting the possibilities of the world by increasing distrust and skepticism. Betrayal changes not only our sense of the world, but our sensibility toward the world.” (Jackson 72)

Yesterday on social media I read comments where a known person started to make jokes about different ethnic groups, dwarves, Christians, Catholics and the like. If he were a comedian like say Dave Chappelle no one would have cared but his theme was shooting. As his followers started to delete him he sat and counted them and made light of it as if it were a joke that he might have offended someone. I found this strange as a week before this same person decried that he wanted people to click on the follow button. All groups were welcome and the discussion was open. There this person was intentionally being insulting and not explaining why and finding pleasure in the fact he was running people off.

After viewing this comedy of errors, I thought to myself someone stop him before it goes too far. Maybe he was drinking….? No one should drink and engage in social media. It ends badly. He seemed pretty sober to me but then again I wasn't physically there.

This was my main thought: if this person was advertising himself out as a master shootist how can one of a variety of groups feel confident that when he gets behind closed doors that he is not prejudice against them while he takes their money?

On betrayal I also thought of people who hunt in regards to online media that target groups that follow them for nefarious reasons. An example is from previous posts of the female hunter joining groups or friending people only to find out they are using hunting as a blanket for victimizing other people. That is an act of betrayal because they advertised themselves as professional hunters but the person finds out they are just bored people on the internet with indifferent lives while people hating.

If you go to a garage to have a mechanic work on your car and find out he’s stealing off your car to fix someone else’s because two weeks in your car breaks down; would you not feel betrayed? And pissed?

The idea that I submit to you is this. There are other places to dig. I do not recall a law that said you cannot pan for gold in other places. As a consumer of information you have a right to look for other options. You are not stuck with a particular set of ‘friends’ on social media because you ‘appear’ to share the same things. Sometimes sharing the same ideology in friendship does not make you grow as a person. I have friends from all over and each is unique. Put variety into your life and when it comes to well-known personalities that are trying to keep you hooked while abusing you; just say good-bye to them. There are other fish in the virtual sea. It’s something to think about indeed.

With that I would say wanton follower beware. Things may not be as they seem. Just remember the feeling of the hair standing on the back of your neck. It’s call intuition.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Literature Cited:

Jackson, Rodger L. “The Sense and Sensibility of Betrayal: Discovering the Meaning of Treachery through Jane Austen.” Humanitas 13 (2000): 72-89.

 

Hollow

Remember this: No One Is Born Lacking. You are not Hollow.

Disclaimer: I will probably add or take away from this because it seems like a vast topic but I don’t want to fill a void here or make one.

I was in an interesting conversation with a professional hunter that said killing is not killing. Hunting fills the hunter in a spiritual way. For the record this was a very nice man and I do not want to divulge his name. This is a brief synopsis of the actual comment yet he put it eloquently with some additional things. I did not disagree with him in the sense I didn’t want to insult him by saying he was wrong or right. That is the ethos of hunting; each hunter is different from a different perspective and belief. All you can do is compare notes.

I then paused a great pause in my mind. I thought of the Holy Trinity with the religious rituals of drinking wine as the blood of Christ and eating the wafer as sacrament to the flesh. Albeit these rituals of remembered sacrifice one could argue implied cannibalism. It’s the symbology that is prevalent not the cannibalism. My thoughts here do not lie with cannibalism but more with sacrificing to fill a void. Yes, the void……….I have heard people even in daily life refer to this place that no one can get directions to but it exists. I wondered when did life get to a point where we are taught that there is something missing inside of us. Except bacon, come on?

If you are a professional hunter,killing in three digit counts on commercial hunts,  can this still be considered a spiritually based act? Can quota replace spiritual belief in hunting? If you feel hunting is a form of filling of the spirit then there must be a void or need to take in such psychic energy. If this is the case,  when does the body count become enough to fill this void or is it the never-ending hole in the boat? How long does one have to scoop mental water before it is satisfied? Is this satisfaction temporary? Why does this condition exist at all? Do people realize they are using this condition of a void to support their argument for why they hunt? Are hunters really saying I am empty? Is this the mystery of the glass half full or half empty?

My Merriam-Webster dictionary and thesaurus defined the term void as a noun that means empty space: emptiness; a feeling of want or hollowness. Hollow?

I thought of Dracula in the 2004 Van Helsing movie when he is telling his vampire brides that he is “Hollow” as an explicative to his outward behavior of uncaring melancholy towards his brides suffering. The brides get upset that Dracula isn’t showing enough grief over Van Helsing killing Marishka.

Where does this sense of needing come from? How does hunting fill the void when in fact it does not exist?

In the beginning we are born into this world craving stimulation.  We are hungry. As an example, during cesarean sections on pregnant dogs when the puppies are born the technician must stimulate the puppies. Some practice slinging, a dose of Dopram and epinephrine then put the pups somewhere warm.

Arousal and stimulation is a requirement for physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual existence. Voids form when there is un-relatedness or a need to fit in somewhere to fill the ‘void’. Lack of arousal or stimulation can cause the feeling of a void when it is only in the mind. People at times try to make the void a physical place inside of themselves when it is not physical but mental. You thought it up.

What does this do in terms of the hunter’s psyche? It could lead to putting your faith in ideologies or following charismatic leaders that can easily lead you astray or define the concept of hunting for you. Voids are symptoms of experiencing an inner vacuum that will eventually dictate poor life choices or diminished perspective. People are not comfortable with themselves so the habit of seeking solace outside of the self could happen. Refusing to go into your center and examine why you feel that you have a void can be a scary thing. People do not like facing their demons. Hunting is a good quiet time for that. The tendency to import feelings into ourselves to feel more whole and complete can create a deeper chasm. What if you import inappropriate energy from a place and misinterpret it? Is an internally generated ‘void’ a fallacy that we feed and believe in?

When hunting can the question be asked, “Am I doing this to fill a void inside of me?”

“Am I doing this to keep up with the Jones so I can maintain ties with relationships that are only one faceted and weak?”

At times I have seen conversations where people who hunt are ambivalent towards certain ‘fillers’ from the hunting genre. Can a person promoting hunting progressively deaden others to the actual benefits of hunting by feeding them an agenda which in turn can bring out more of the feeling of void by creating a need that doesn’t really exist, only implied, sublime or in the mind?

At times in between hunting seasons there will build a vague unrest and negativity at monotony because the brain is bored. Think about it. If you took two hunters one from America and one from Africa then deny their opportunity to hunt completely by making them act as lab rats, which one will turn out more stir crazy? Could this be because certain hunters are adrenaline junkies, bored or under stimulated?

What about the creation of ‘the void’? Insert evil music here.

“One cannot create the void. A created void will not be the void; it will only be your creation. Your creation can never be nothingness, the void, because it will have boundaries. You have created it, so it cannot be more than you; it cannot be more than the mind that has created it. You cannot create the void; it must enter you.” (Osho 120)

Here you have created something non-tangible inside of yourself and now must fill a creation that should not be there in the first place. You planted your own rotten seed. Why would you do that to yourself? Why would you let someone do that to you?

I then thought what physical condition could give a person the same sense as a spiritual need or void to be filled. I thought of Vertigo and the fact I had previously watched that Dashing Jimmy Steward and Kim Novak in the movie days before.

“Vertigo due to attraction to the void, which is very common, assumes two forms. In the more active one, the patient says: ‘I have an overwhelming desire to throw myself into the void’; he may tell you, for instance, how he has to keep away from the edge of the balcony, for although he has no conscious desire to kill himself, he nevertheless has an urge to jump into the void. The second form is more passive, the patient saying: ‘I am irresistibly drawn to the void’, and he will also avoid getting close to windows or to the edge of a precipice, because everything seems unsteady and the whirlwind seems about to suck him up, not in order to imprison him as in suction related vertigo, but to make him disappear.

This vertigo in its two forms introduces excorporation as well as projection mechanisms. The attracting external void often turns out to be a projection of the patient’s feelings that he has an inner void. He has different ways of feeling anxious about, and fascinated by, the external void, depending on what he projects into it; moreover, depending on his projections, this attractive outside changes; it may be felt to be unfathomable external void, but equally well a relational space filled with riches. Between these two feelings there can be a whole range of intermediate states. The anxiety about being irresistibly attracted to this void or to this space can be associated with various representations invested with bodily references.” (Quinodoz 59)

Is this void only a feeling and nothing more?

All these questions and so little time.  In retrospect when you are evaluating your beliefs and spiritual workings of the concept of hunting and what it means to you please stop for a minute and think first; I am not hollow. I do not have a void. The reason I say this is when you think in these terms you are saying your experiences are short lived and limiting. Your memories are not. You are not a supermassive black hole that sucks everything in its center and then it disappears into the unknown. If you are hunting for yourself the experience is going to have a different meaning with compared to commercial hunting where bodies can stack up fairly fast. Reasonably you can only take on so much energy and if you are killing and not immediately ingesting animal parts then you can say you are sucking the energy force from the life of your quarry. If this is true then you are not only taking on the positive energy of life but of its death. You either take it all or nothing. You can’t pick and choose.

When it comes to having a void…..you conjured that up or someone told you it existed and you took it into yourself as a creation idea from some other source. You were not born lacking only hungry for actual food, water and stimulation. Think long and hard about that.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Literature Cited:

Osho. The Psychology of the Esoteric. Navin Shahdara, Delhi: Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd, (2004). Print. pg 120.

Quinodoz, Danielle. Emotional Vertigo: Between Anxiety and Pleasure. London, UK: Routledge. (2002). Pg. 59.