Hunting: BRCA1 and BRCA2

Remember this: Body image is not everything. Having a part of your body removed or excised doesn't make you any less than the person you were before it happened. You are still you.

Today I took a trip to the OB-GYN for a yearly check-up. Prior to examination, my doctor told me about this new study to test for hereditatry breast and ovarian cancer and genetic counseling. She suggested I get this test for BRCA1 and BRCA2

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are referred to as breast cancer 1 and 2. These are genes that can mutate and alter to increase your risk of forming breast or ovarian cancer.  The BRCA can be passed down through your family.

I was fortunate enough to be offered this service through a clinical study. My understanding is you have to have at least two or three relatives that are postive for breast cancer. I figured if using me for a lab rat could help someone, then why not?

My pamphlet did indicate if you were of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage you have a higher risk of carrying a BRCA mutation. I have seen this lineage noted in the Genographic Project but there are probably other places to test your DNA. The frequency of this risk is 1 in 40.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology and The National Comprehensive Cancer Network support this testing in high risk or strong family history to breast or ovarian cancer.

This is not limited to females but also branches out to males. Men, you are not immune.

BRCA1 and BRCA2  mutations can be passed down from mother or father. This is done in autosomal dominant fashion, which means that having one copy of an altered BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene increases your chance of developing certain cancers.

This test was to see if I carried the mutated gene. The technician pulled my blood and I filled out the forms.  I just have to wait for my results.

If the test is positive that means I inherited the BRCA mutated gene and have an increased risk to form the disease. It doesn't indicate I have developed cancer.

If the test is negative the results means my chances of carrying the BRCA mutation has been greatly reduced but not completely eliminated.

There are uncertain results to these tests.

The present options are to increase cancer screenings, proactive prophylactic surgery, drug therapy, and evaluating your family members for this mutation.

You are then referred to a genetic counselor to discuss your risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. After this counseling, I suggest getting more informed and not making a decision out of panic.

I was looking at the chart that indicates male breast cancer, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.

I then thought of my personal experience with breast cancer. I have not been diagnosed but know of people who have and elected to do the proactive surgery. There was a lot of terror involved on their part.  After this person had the procedure, she is living life just as she did before, minus the boob. She hasn't thought to get a replacement boob. It does still bother her from time to time. She thinks no one will love her because she is missing a breast.   She did tell me she was taunted by a man she was in a relationship with, that told her she was half a woman because she had a hysterectomy and her breast removed. Because she didn't have a uterus and one breast, she wasn't a whole woman. I told her to call that man and thank him for helping her make the decision to dump him.  It wouldn't matter to the person or family, if they loved her. Yet I say that and there are men who would not find a single boobed woman or a woman with both boobs gone attractive. It happens. Being mad at these kinds of people for that idea is a waste of time.

Yet there are women who overcome. They overcome adversity and having a procedure to go on and live a full life. They are alive and happy. So what if they have a scar?

Then you have those rare men that just care about the woman and not about the loss of body parts. The woman worries more about it than her man does.

There are women that do have a rigid body image of being a whole woman. That body image is challenged when some part of their anatomy is excised or removed. As always with this elected surgeries there are psychological issues that go neglect while the physical ailments are resolved. I suggest to people to find a support group of people that understand this facet of the treatment. You can have empathy but never know the degree to which a person suffers.

What does this have to do with hunting? If I can use hunting as a platform to encourage women and men to get in the doctor's office and be tested to indicate if they have a potentially genetic inherited disease, then why not?

This is an issue that occurs in  hunting participants lives. When you look at the rate only the beautiful people are promoted in the hunting sport in advertisements or the good ole boys regardless of gutline, you could see where on or our fellow hunting participants might have a problem feeling inadequate to some degree. People carry a certain amount of body image and then you have the problem of vanity. There are people that base their whole identity around their outer shell. When that outer shell starts to fall to rack and ruin, you then find the people that truly cared for you in the first place. I've seen my fair share of people dying and they don't care about beauty in the end. They just want to live.

Working from your center and knowing who you are is a good way to tackle these issues. You can be strong enough for yourself if no one is there. You can face a problem with a positive mind and overcome it. If you find that you are to far gone, you can always proceed with honor and grace.  You don't have to ball up and die.

You have hunting participants with mothers, daughters, brothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, and cousins. All of these people have the potential to carry these mutated genes. If you could spare someone an ounce of suffering by finding this out and approaching this problem with a support group of family and friends, then do so. If you want them around for years to come to go hunting, fishing, or camping with; get yourself tested.

I guess I could have talked about fish hooks, buck horns, some new gadgetry, or another non-relevant issue but this is important. This is as important as getting checked for diabetes, congestive heart failure, or another other disease that could cause you to lose quality of life or dignity. People give their dignity away all the time, if they have any. Others slowly lose to a health problem.

You might want to see your grandkids being born or go climb to the top of that mountain. You might want to become a last minute explorer or find the person you dreamed you would meet and marry. You never know. Life is short and disease waits for no man. You can't lay down longterm in a bed crying about it either. Eventually you have to get up and do something about it. Do something before the eleventh hour.

 Get tested and live.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

I, Creator.

Remember this: Intentionally creating something but not foreseeing the inability to control the outcome is what plagues the creator and created.

Mary Shelley’s story, The Modern Prometheus was published in 1818. This story is also known in modern day culture as Frankenstein.

The plot of the story begins with Dr. Victor Frankenstein chasing the creature to the North Pole. The reader soon comes to discover the motive behind this need to find the creature. Dr. Victor Frankenstein makes a deliberate decision to conduct unethical experiments on a corpse. This reanimates the corpse, who is neither human, inhuman, living, nor dead.  After his successful experiment appears to be a failure, Victor spends the rest of his life in pursuit of the very creature he created. Dr. Frankenstein considers his creation to be an abomination that could eventually threaten humanity when the creature asks Victor to create him a mate. Toward the end, the monster laments over the dead body of Dr. Frankenstein while recounting his reasoning for vehemence against his creator.

There are several morals to this story but the ones I want to observe are the moral dilemmas of playing an omnipotent being (creator), lack of vision, where intention turns to horror when the creation deviates from the creator’s initial goal, and bearing the responsibility of bad decision-making on tragic or unforeseen outcomes. Dr. Frankenstein had a bad case of eating more than his mental stomach could hold.

This narrative of a corpse and the ethical ramification of such a creation drew parallels to a goal posted online by a hunting federation.  I am not singling out this federation but merely wanted to see if I could examine the comment when applied to a work of fiction. The words of the posts stated the desire to create new hunters. My mind first conjured up Jango Fett’s clone army in the Star Wars franchise; rows and rows of monochrome hunters holding guns. I have long seen the word recruitment being used in conjunction with bringing new individuals to the outdoor sports.

When you look at the deliberate intention to go forth and find people to enlist as hunters or outdoorsmen, it is the motive behind this maneuver that brings some concern.

If you were observing from the outside, you might think that someone is trying to build an army. The purpose for this escapes me unless it is a short term goal on speed dial when you need a mass of people to come forward to support some cause or potential problem.

Hunting in particular, is a traditional activity exercised by families or individuals to procure wild game as a nutritional source. Now it is looking more and more like signing up for selective services except you sign on by buying your hunting license. Someone other than the DNR feels they have the right or position to dictate to you the mode of hunter you will become or what they think is appropriate.

The issue here is the creator makes the created in their image. What if the creator is flawed?

I then paused to postulate maybe creating this army of hunters or outdoorsmen is nothing more than a psychological cushion because of fear of the unknown or creator ego. It could be something else. Once the creator feels some requirement is met to the newly coined individual as hunters, their work is done. Or is it? Newborn hunters are shoved out the nest to fend for themselves.

The creator relinquishes any responsibly for his creation other than requiring membership fees to keep them in business or you in the loop of things. Asking hunters for free content to promote and subsidize a page without any reimbursement of some kind is taking advantage as well. If the creation is siphoning money back into the creator’s pocket, who intended this all along, how can this be just or fair?

As a human creator of things, the creator has a certain amount of responsibility for its creation. The creation will be educated through assimilation into a social structure built around the outdoor sports. I asked the question, when did the outdoor sport become less than a part of living a natural life? It sounds more and more like a job you punch into every day.

Where does this creation stand in the multitude of hunting? Care and tending through vigilance until the new hunter creations can function alone or in groups should be applied.

There is also this issue of hunter creation not adhering to the program of the creator through deviation from creator’s initial goals. They could begin to stand on their own as individuals and question the motives of the creator, then challenge their authority. Created outgrows creators and the creator no longer controls the created.

The thought someone at this foundation had this idea could be seen as a positive to bring about more people to enjoy the sport. I don’t know if they truly thought through their Create a Hunter program. The mindset should be the introduction of people to hunting as an activity that could become a part of their life. This is done through mentorship and educational programs that build social ties to the community and family. The mindset should not be building an army. There are several branches of the Armed Forces to choose from if you wanted to go that route. There are drill sergeants waiting to teach you all you’ll ever need to know.

One must always be wary when becoming a consumer of outdoor information. It’s like any other information. There is a messenger and a message. If the messenger is warped, the message could be too; question that. You do not want to wake up one morning to find yourself at the whim of an Apt Pupil mentor, who has plans for you.

If you feel someone is enlisting you on the fast track of programing ideology and technical skills, by their definition, then turn you as a recruit out to do damage; man up and say no to that. It’s your life and you are able to make decisions without someone putting their hand in your head and puppeting your mind and mouth.

The issue here is the lack of natural progression of the outdoorsman or hunter genesis to the wilderness. Someone wants to artificially intervene for progress’s sake.

Dismissing the potential for disaster in the hunter creation circumstance could be another issue to evaluate.

When hunting-based federations take it upon themselves to create hunters, these hunters either exist for a purpose of some function targeted for a need or want on the part of the federation. Unless they just want a bunch of warm bodies bumping around at banquet dinners or putting them on the back burner for times of crisis.

In closing, when you begin to formulate the goal of creating an army for yourself, please remember these are human beings; not drones or playthings for your whimsy. At some point, you will not be able to think for them, control or even maintain their numbers. Everyone should be given a chance to participate but don’t expect everyone to jump on the band wagon.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Cyber-bullying; A Hunting Task Force.

Remember this: Commend those that look for solutions to problems. Be wary of those that instigate their own problem then act like the victim.

I was reading a post on Google plus. The post stated the U. S. Sportsmen Alliance met on 23 July 2014 to discuss acts of cyber-attacks towards outdoor sports participants by creating a Hunter Advancement Task Force to address these issues. My first thoughtful question: Was this the SWAT of hunting or what? I looked at the list of people. It was a who’s who of important people in the outdoor sports industry; so much for the little man. No money, no opinion. 

I did look for a detailed transcript of these talks to see what exactly was on the menu, as far as meat and taters. Nothing but vagaries. I felt this posting was publicity for the appearance of doing something, when in fact it was a loose interpretation of, what appeared to be, looking for solutions to cyber-bullying against the average hunter, when it fact it is for specialty groups or high profile individuals.

I commend this group for finally admitting a hunter-generated problem existed and needed some address. After reading this, I recognized the common theme penned of shared targeting by animal rights activists or people on the internet that didn’t like seeing dead animal pictures.

This task force group started to read like an initial coalition formed for the self-serving purposes of protecting high profile members and entities such as non-profits and foundations based around outdoor sports that were more important than the rest of us; not the little man. People like me that can’t afford membership fees, with no status or connections, do not seem to be invited to that party. Yet the question loomed. Exactly who is this supposed to benefit again?

I did see the wordage of ‘the average hunter’. The wording was to indicate average hunters are not of importance to animal activists because we are a bunch of little nobodies. It seemed slightly dismissive. The argument for hunting is hunter money makes the world go around. There is a sense of exclusion when certain things don’t serve specific purposes. Am I lead to believe that only television personalities, CEOs, non-profits and other entities are more important than the rest of us because they put themselves on display in the public more often? Is this really a small group of people trying to figure out how to protect their interests as industry elite, while publicizing this information as an attempt toward protecting all hunters? Good question.

The possible issue making birth is a governing body made of industry entities and people, pushing their agenda like lobbyists on capital hill, settling on a course of action for self-serving reason while dictating to excluded portions of outdoorsmen to form policies or procedures without including the average hunter. Then dictating how judgments will be doled out, to whom, why, and what constitutes speaking against hunters.

I see nothing wrong with protecting participants of the outdoor sports. What happens when these exclusive groups turn on the average hunter to squelch any kind of dialogue that goes contrary to their dictated storyline? I have been attacked by hunters before and it does happen. They don’t like what you say because there is some weight to your words that can’t be denied. Instead of taking your suggestion in as pertinent information to be regarded for problem-solving, you are instead referred to as a trouble source that must be ignored, made into a social pariah, or de-characterized within a social group and excluded.

I also thought of the key players in this little canto. I had followed Bachman and Waller on social media for a long time. Neither was my flavor of person but I wanted to keep abreast of folks in the industry. What I gathered from watching them and seeing how they or whoever was posting for each carried themselves was this: Negative actions should bear the weight of bad behavior. Bachman garnered more attention because of its inflammatory nature.

After so many posts, you begin to see people getting on the band wagon of advertising their abuse by anti-hunters. Some probably went as far as to find someone to fight with to make their promotion of this idea valid. There is nothing like bad press. It puts you right in the limelight. Look to Hollywood for examples.

If you are doing things to make your condition worse, how can anyone like that be included in a brightest minds meeting? The root of the problem is behavior. Yes, Bachman and Waller should be included in cleaning up the mess of their own making, as does anyone else. There should also be some degree, on their part, of admitting to antagonizing the situation for the promotion of their television personas. There are also male hunters that act the same way. So this is not strictly a female issue.

There is a growing trend to prostrate women out as shields. Shields are the protective armor from the attack of arrows and slings, etc. The shield takes all the punishment while the person or issue hiding behind it is kept from harm. Eventually the shield is broken, dropped, or tossed aside once the battle is over. If it is a sturdy shield then it may be used again and again until demolished. By pushing women out into the fray is to compound a terrible situation and make it escalate into something far uglier; which it already has turned into. Women have been perceived in the past as weaker and easier to beat down. If you were not weak then you were mistreated because no one could manage you and beating the crap out of you didn’t work.  

The other problem I see is the possibility of a Monsanto of Hunting. Monsanto has been documented to take drastic action against farmers that are opposed to the way Monsanto goes about doing their business. 

When a group tries to monopolize information, control meaningful content from their perspective only, and as a publicity release to clean up messes, then turn around an issue educational information control by them is disturbing. Now you are being sat down like a three-year-old that needs to be explained the potty because you are clueless. The more educated person with status and power must guide you over the cliff of their choosing. This harkens to the educated elite controlling the poor stupid casts who trust they are being lead to prosperity, when it is only a life of indenture to support their cause.  

How best to educate the public? Thanks for taking it upon yourselves to determine that for hunting participants. Undoubtedly, we can’t find that information, translate and interpret the facts ourselves. If I want education about my hunting, I go straight to the SCDNR. They govern my hunting license, write the tickets, and dictate my actions when out in the field. I don’t go to anyone else.

As an example of how I would deal with cyber-bullying when it comes to hunting is this: I can attest that I had some people using a fake profile on google plus in my early use. I use a faux name because there are people that seem to find it an enjoyment to stalk me in the past. They were also on my Facebook page. When this group began to disturb my calm, I realized early they were not who they said they were. I investigated the name then called the local sheriff’s department in that area. I found out the persons on the internet were frauds with harmful intent.  I was then told to fill out a complaint at my local sheriff’s department and provide all the information to investigate these people, even though the profile said they were less than four hours away in the same state. Now if someone makes a profile with a pen name, then bothers no one while minding their business or cause harm, I don’t care about those. As an average hunting participant, this is what I must do. Turn it in to the cops. There will be no task force or governing body to intervene on my behalf. I am naked an on my own but I am not afraid.

I read how this task force would attempt civil and criminal action against harassing non-hunting participants. When you think of the number of people online that get cyber-bullied over hunting, it could be financially overwhelming. There is no feasible way to pay a lawyer for that many people. Shorting my field of view, my eye went back to special individuals or groups.

I thought, what could be the short term goals? Putting a cap on imminent threats to industry elite so they can continue their cycle of livelihood and public profiles, unmolested came to mind. Another short reaching goal is to advertise the initiation of a task force to put fear in the minds of people who are vehemently against hunting to see if they back off. This is a form of false posturing.

Long term goals would be to lobby legislation against non-hunting participants who use the tactic of cyber-bullying to threaten people as a form of localized terrorism.

Reader beware, the animal activist machine will shadow this with their own form of task force. The road runs both ways. If a hunter gets on the internet and harasses a non-hunting participant because they feel protected under the wing of a task force against hunting cyber-bullying, don’t think you can’t get nailed if you instigate a fight. Evidence is evidence.

When it comes to controlling and monitoring individuals on the internet, this is an expedition to a place called Failure, to some extent. Entities such as Facebook and Google are not under the thumb of the outdoor establishment. They are only policed and sanctioned by their self-serving interests from within.

If I weren’t a thinking person, I would have read this and said, “Yeah! Great, someone is doing something.” When you break it down and mark your questions in the margins, you become quickly skeptical about the content and what it truly means long term and who it applies to. When it doesn’t apply to you in the collective, it’s pretty much another empty proposition.

People are too busy being reactionary and not thinking through things they read, see, or hear. We put all our trust into federations, foundations, non-profits and government to deal with our problems. They are problems of our making because of our behavior. We pass our decision-making abilities off on other people, then try to hold them responsible when things don’t work out. We stand idly by while people form groups to make decisions without including a larger portion of the group which gives them monopoly. There are too many people in positions of power that lack common sense when sensible people who are poor get locked out then suffer for it.

In my early blogs, when I wrote that hunting needed reform stands true just as the source I got it from stated. When I wrote about people getting threatened to the point of murder, the machine is driving it in that direction because of the activists showing up at Bachman’s door. When I wrote about the blurry face of hunting, it meant all hunters, not just outdoor industry teacher’s pets. When I wrote about abuse, it was the female hunters who have online strangers trying to molest them. This also went to the behaviors of both sides of the fence acting less than civil. My blog started looking like a self-fulfilling prophecy. When I see posts that indicate a divergence from my storyline, I think for a moment that there might be some positive change. I read, digested, and realized no such luck.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth (a.k.a) the woman with no pot to piss in and no window to throw it out of.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

The Water of Life

 Remember this: Some things need no explanation.

“The water of life, wishing to make itself known on the face of the earth, bubbled up in an artesian well and flowed without effort or limit. People came to drink of the magic water and were nourished by it, since it was so clean and pure and invigorating. But humankind was not content to leave things in this Edenic state. Gradually they began to fence the well, charge admission, claim ownership of the property around it, make elaborate laws as to who could come to the well, put locks on the gates. Soon the well was the property of the powerful and the elite. The water was angry and offended; it stopped flowing and began to bubble up in another place. The people who owned the property around the first well were so engrossed in their power systems and ownership that they did not notice that the water had vanished. They continued selling the nonexistent water, and few people noticed that the true power was gone. But some dissatisfied people searched with great courage and found the new artesian well. Soon that well was under the control of the property owners, and the same fate overtook it. The spring took itself to yet another place---and this has been going on throughout recorded history.” ( Johnson vii-viii)

Does this sound familiar? 

Literature Cited:
Johnson, Robert A. Owning Your Own Shadow, Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche. Harper Collins Publisher, New York, NY. 1971 Print. (vii-viii)

Man Will Be Nature's Equal

Remember this: The thing that a lot of people cannot comprehend is that Mother Nature doesn't have a bullet with your name on it, she has millions of bullets inscribed with "to whom it may concern.

~Anonymous Sage~

Thank the Great Unknown, all the scientists, geeks, and nerds for our technology. As hunters, we rely on the meteorologists of the world, cell phone apps, and gadgetry to tell us when it will forecast rain, blazing sun, icy snow, sun rise/set, and when the tides are high or low. At times, we use the old finger-lick technique to see which way the wind is blowing. I guess you could fart and see if you could smell it by the wind coming up from behind.

There are certain initial weather conditions that we can determine beforehand and the secondary fallout from such blights of natural disaster via meteorologic information. In some cases, tornadoes, twisters, tsunamis, etc. just seem to appear out of nowhere with little warning. There are also long burning forest fires from lightning and dry conditions, snow storms, flooding, disease pandemics, and other surprises on the horizon. Nature's good graces and wrath are upon the landscape of Earth in varying degrees.


Rain was pelting my window, slowly lulling me to sleep as I watched television. The reason for this foray into Nature's weather was based from a boot commercial running in between hunting shows. It wasn't a boot issue for sure. The commentator stated something to the effect, “...Man will be Nature's equal”. I heard the sour sound of a bad string being plucked on my inner banjo. Not wanting to be nit-picky, I cleared my mind to focus on the question: how could this partial statement be interpreted?

As Hurricane Arthur breezed its way passed, people breathed a sigh of relief. I thought about the relationship between hunting participants and Nature, as it stands from a human perspective. Hurricanes definitely can serve up a terrible dose of Mother Nature's wrath if you've never experienced one. Unprecedented damage to life and limb, displacement of families and animals, rebuilding and problem-solving for communities for years to come. If you have long endured such a beast during your lifetime, you learn what to do and not to do. The most you can do if you are a local is: ride it out like a big kahuna wave and hope you don't crash under the wave itself.

What could be the possible human perspectives of living as a part or separate from Nature? The human perspective is: you live with Nature as a functioning contributor, live outside/inside of Nature as the competitor, or live life as the spectator who just exists. There are probably otherways not mentioned.

These ideas on the approach of the hunting participant's role in Nature is a pie chart. A little of this and a little of that. These divisible parts show a trend to temporarily visit as a lifestyle choice instead of a way of living as a mutually benefiting organism. The wordage of lifestyle choice makes it sound just that; a choice which can be picked up or thrown down at will depending on your fancy. A portion of hunting participants do consider Nature to be the enemy that one must overcome and vex to feel like a hunter/adventurer. I scratch my head at this. Yet there are hunting participants that want to be a part of the hunting act, involving their need for the intimacy of nature and not its conqueror. There are hunting participants who are integral parts of the maintenance and upkeep of Nature. The list of differing roles goes on. People exist that do not hunt but act the same way. You don't have to look to far; oil spills, deforestation, and displacement of indigenous peoples to assimilate into the civilized world.

The concept idea for marketing this boot lead me into my next critique of how true this statement is. Can Man every truly be equal to Nature? Is there anything right or wrong about this endeavor? Why do divisions of humanity strive to conquer all in a sundry?

There is also the view that Nature is the enemy and fractions of hunting participants exists outside of Nature instead of being a crucial part of the narrative. This seemed to be the idea the commercial was selling. A canine with blue eyes that I observed was to represent a wolf or agent of Nature. Was I to believe that to kill a wolf was to conquer Nature? Maybe it should have been a double twister with the hunter running for his life. He'd be running in the boots. It is truly proven that this animal type, the wolf, can be hunted and killed. There is also the suggestion to employ dogs to hunt wolves. I wondered why hunting as is, was not good enough. Whoever participates in this hunting activity might better think of spay or neutering their dogs. Once in estrus, they are going to be mongrels bred up in them there hills. Dogs will tie up through a kennel fence, as I have seen this. Nothing to stop them out in the bushes chasing after their own kind. On a funnier note, I once saw a chihuahua breeding a female rottweiler who laid down on the ground for him. Naughty. Naughty. That is a hard urge to ignore.

I figure to help with the economy, if someone is going to do a hunt with dogs on wolves, it should be monitored by the DNR through listing the dogs used. The dogs used should then be taken to a veterinary with a 24-48 hour period to be checked for excessive wounds and treatment with follow-up care. This paperwork should be submitted by the veterinary; not the hunter. Ethically, if you're going to endanger your hunting dog, you should not toss the dog in the pen after they do the work. Bite puncture wounds do get infected and turn into abscesses. These hunting dogs should also be pre-monitored by the DNR through submitted paperwork by the hunter listing all vaccinations, neuter, spaying and deworming. The DNR should also charge an extra fee for the administration of this function to ensure hunter ethics, hound health, and wolf hunting regulations. Pen it down as going to conservation and Angelia's love/hate relationship with veterinary medicine. Now write the check.

Humanity's relationship with Nature in the past was, man survives Nature's wrath. Things have not changed, except we can make it rain by dumping particles in the clouds with planes. Covert operations could possibly bring about an earthquake, plague through biological warfare, and let us not forget the secret death ray in outer space (tips hat to conspiracy theorists). I forgot the Aliens. These are man-made versions of Mother Nature's wrath by our own hand.

There are probably times when hunters go into the mountains or the woods to hunt only to find the weather is shifting moods. Clear now. Foggy later. You could start out sunny and dry then end up wet, naked, cold, and afraid. Add the unseen in the dark, staring at you like a piece of bacon then you're in for a treat. Going into unknown terrain would dictate that the guide be knowledgeable of the changing weather patterns, how it will affect the hunt, and the possibilities of waylaying the goal of procuring the animal. I am sure there is not one client that feels uneasy when stuck out in bad weather while wondering if they are going to get trapped out in the bush.

We could even observe commercial fishermen out on the ocean. Introduce a bad storm or some other atmospheric anomalie and you're Mark Walhberg's character in The Perfect Storm, drifting to your death in monster waves. Commercial fishermen experience this all the time when the ship topples over, gets stuck in an ice bank, the waves could push the workers over board, or strand them out to sea. There are just things you don't see coming.

My survey of life infernal on the planet is: a good portion of its inhabitants are actually working on ways to co-exist with nature instead of against or to conquer Nature. This exertion of energy would be more beneficial to all inhabitants. Why has this taken so long?

People don't want to die. The impending threat of extinction on humanity's part is enough to scare people to action and clean up their act. When the Grim Reaper is reporting for duty, people will pray for a miracle, sell their soul, sacrifice chickens, or check-out emotionally. Others will dance in the street having a party. I guess if you have to die; die happy.

I penned this commercial down as a poorly worded advertising slogan. There are people that do have the mentality Nature is a thing to overcome. Participants in Nature's cycles, who have this relationship with Nature as the enemy to be conquered, are arrogant.

I will interject that I disclude adventurers who have goals to do things like climb Mt. Everest. These goals do not intel changing the world but changing or manifesting some need inside. There is little carbon foot print on the Earth or the taking of life; unless they lose their own during the expedition.The implication is not to overcome Nature but issues that block them from finishing goals from within.

Humanity's unchecked fingers produce products and services with poor minds sets that bring about global dysfunction. It breeds pollution on the landscape of Nature and we have debilitated the functioning of the Earth to some degree. There are global changes that humanity will not have control over. We must be accountable for trespasses and find solutions to clean up our leftover, messy wake.

Nature reminds us how strong and fragile we are. There is no need to conquer the wilderness. As hunting participants, we need the landscape to exercise our technical and spiritual skills. These skills carry one through life. Propagate that. There is no conquering Nature or being its equal. To do so could possibly cause a dynamic shift in our perception of the wilderness as a thing to trample under foot instead of protect. People say we have conquered space. The universe is big and we have conquered nothing because we barely understand or know where the boundaries are.

Participants in this life can be stewards of Earth and its creatures. We can learn to manage components of the ecosystems to the benefit of inhabitants. Utilizing sustainability to continue cycles and propagate life is a better endeavor than conquering it.

Participants that strive to be God-like by manipulating the course of life, as it is, should be weary of the outcome. Usually we perceive a goal but the different outcomes could be beneficial or tragic. We can't control everything. Just as Jeff Goldblum's character stated in Jurassic Park, “Life will find a way.”

Man will be equal to Nature doesn't seem so relevant. Once humanity is done there will be nothing but a bare, raped landscape filled with deserts, death, and void of its animals. There again, shifting ideology and behavior is going toward the improvement of the environment. Where does one stand in the throws of Nature's wrath? Where ever it is, it had better be humbled. I subscribe more to Cody Lundin's stance of keeping my ass alive; socks or not. All you can do in the end is survive it.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

The Ocean Primeval

Remember this:  Plotting, planning, and executing never hurt a fishing soul with a goal.



It was 4:30 am when packed ready to go, I left the house for the beach to go saltwater fishing. There was no traffic on the way. I downloaded a free app that listed the high and low tides. I subtracted and hour for good measure. The tide was suppose to be coming in at 9:30 am. I got there at 6 am.

Before I pursued my goal of being a lazy fisherwoman, I stood on the beach and watched the sun come up. It was surreal. The water was a calm, perfect, silvery blue color. Seeing the sun come up on the ocean should be a part of life at some point. If not, make it a priority to pen that somewhere in your agenda.

I have read early accounts of First People standing on the eastern shores when the First Light appears. It seemed a natural thing to do; waiting for the sun. You stand there and don't think about nothing. The view is just as it is; what you see.

The walk down the beach to the South jetty was for my exercise regime yet I had my mountain bike at the ready. The neurologist prescribed  low impact exercise. I figure walking wasn't a bad thing.  By the time I was done with the day, my mileage would total nearly 50 miles for the week. Undoubtedly, I like to punish myself.



After taking some photos, I moved on. There was an assortment of sea shells, seaweed, and crab running loose on the shore. Birds where out. The air temperature was cool and the ocean water was warm.

I noticed at least two to three wire cages lining the beach. The loggerhead turtles were laying. There were also areas roped off as no access for migratory or sea birds to use as nesting areas. You could hear the little birds peeping way in the dunes somehwere.

When you see these types of cages do not bother them.

I finally got to  the jetties and unpacked my small amount of fishing gear. Oooops on my part because I realized I only had three weights. The rod I was using was the Ugly Stick. Pretty sweet name, I thought. By the time I started catching fish, some of the things I was pulling out the drink looked like they had been beat with the Ugly Stick.

The bait of the day, to spare no expense, was fresh turkey neck. I passed on the shrimp, mullet or live bait. Some of that bait, especially the shrimp, falls apart on the hook once in the water.

The jetty is a long path out to sea that is asphalted with rocks on both sides. The rocks do extend out a ways covered by the ocean. This makes it vicarious when losing hook, line and sinker to the murky shallows.

The other compromising issue was the wakes from bigger, fast moving boats. Along with the ocean current, your baited hook would be pushed closer to the rocks. Most of the disturbance to the ocean water came from the bigger boats going by but they didn't anchor to far off the South jetty or out to sea. There was another, the North jetty out in the water but the smaller boat were anchored around it while fishing up a storm. I had been on a boat out there before. Being on a boat makes it easier to fish away from the rocks if you catch something before the fish make a run to their hidey-holes.

I noticed the men I walked behind at the boardwalk were at the end of the jetty. I sat there after I cast out and watched the boats and tourists on  inflated bananas go by.  Jet skis were next.  It looked like fun.The inflated banana reminded me of the one Jaws attacked.

Not to long after casting out, I realized I had a bite. I started to reel in and caught a black sea bass yet I thought it was a black drum at first, but no. All total, I caught three of these fish but I measured them and they were not big enough to keep. These fish were pretty obvious when on the line. You would get that vibrating jerk, jerk feel to it. I did have my DNR magazine with me to keep me out of trouble along with my fishing license. Too small is too small. Toss it back. I will contend there that you should always groom those DNR guidelines because there are some fish that are not allowed, especially here to possess or catch. There are also limits and seasons to adhere to.

I caught three other fish but it looked more like the creature from the black lagoon. It was an oyster toadfish,  or oyster cracker. I was reading up on this particular creature and found NASA sent this species into space to study the effects of microgravity on the development of otolithic organs. It would seem that they are sensitive to gravity and linear acceleration due to some structure in the inner ear. Interesting stuff.

These beasts from the sea have little yellow fins that seem to make it sort of amphibious. It  could walk on land if it wanted to.  Also there were these protrusions like sea demon horns from the top of its flat head. The mouth delivers a mighty chomp. It reminded me of a hellbender except it didn't have legs. The ones I caught didn't have the beardiness around the mouth either. Must have shaved before coming out.

I then wondered if Neptune intended for me to kiss a toadfish? I laughed. No prince here.

Removing the hook was problematic and I decided to do Confederate field surgery. It would seem that once the oyster  toadfish swallows the hook there is a structure inside resembling a bloodless, white sphinter muscle. It's god awful to behold and looks like an anus inside of its mouth. I laughed about that for some time. The teeth looked like newborn teeth.

Trying not to traumatize the fish to much, I just cut the end of the hook off and pulled the smooth piece out. One of the bigger oyster toadfish bent my pole over double from its weight. When I touched the fish, it sounded like a dog barking. I giggled about that; sounds as creepy as a croacker. My understanding is when breeding the male gives off a  foghorn sound.  I tossed it back. The one thing I noticed in catching this fish is: you don't know it is on the  hook. It gulps the hook then sits there. When you start reeling the bait in, you think you have been caught on the rocks, but no. I do suspect that being near the jetty, the oyster toadfish do lay-in-wait by the rocks then capitalize on the baited hook as prey.

I stayed there from 6 am to 10:30 am.  I was getting less action the more the high tide came in. One usually relegates two hours before and after high tide to fish. I wondered what effect the Supermoon had on my day's activity. The moon hung in the sky watching everything.

The funnier moment was when a man came by kayaking. I was catching fish in my excited state. He was trying to talk to me from the boat but I was on the fish. I watched him paddle away thinking he was going to flip the boat or crash it on the rocks because he was pretty close. I guess if he did crash it, he could scurry up on the rocks and save himself. I casted out.

Sometime passed. I turned around to bait my hook. The kayaker was now on the beachside of the South Jetty with his boat on the shore. He was changing his clothes. I cast again, not paying attention. When I reeled in the rod, he was standing behind me. He started asking me questions. He said he flipped his kayak  over. I cast the bait. He would talk. I was a little excited but thought it annoyed him because I was talking. He then sat down at my feet to talk some more. I kept on casting. We talked about kayaking on the river because he didn't live to far away from my home. I got his number before he walked off to carry his kayak down the jetty back to the marina area. I thought that a fairly strange interlude to my morning.

I didn't want to get midday sunburn so I packed up. Before going, I did go in and try to dip me some crab but there were none to be had. I felt satisfied I had done my damage. I pushed the mountain bike back down the beach. By this time the tide was very high and the tires sunk down in the soft sand. Riding the bike was not possible.  Having extra turkey neck, I doled it out to fishermen up and down the beach. By the time I got back to the beach access, it was hot and  I was happy to stand under the water hose while drinking from it.  I never died from doing so. I then went home. No fish, no sunburn; happy fisherwoman.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Rethinking Memes and Your Reasons.

Someone, Somewhere Made this. Creator Unknown at this moment.

Remember this: Chumming the water is chumming the water. Bloody, as it is already.


The first section I found juvenile,  if not childish. Nice try with nursery rhymes though.  I applaud whoever made this but it falls short of glory. The reason it falls short of glory is this simple truth:

When the words of another (makes you hunt harder) because of a debate on right or wrongs, then you need to stop and rethink why you are hunting at all. This comment makes it sound like the person posting has no control over his/her decision-making because a second party has swayed them into action based on online manipulation or debate.

That being truly anal on my part but it is what it is. I can't make it more than it is worded.  If it is to spite someone else, you have distorted your whole reason for being in the woods, on the lake and on the mountain side. When I go hunting, I tune this garbage out.

This fodder is for people that sit on the internet arguing with people. They are not outside doing their hunting/fishing business as participants of the outdoors. You'll see this alot with professional or non-professional hunters. They are not enjoying their down time and bored out their minds. They have to get that adrenaline fix while making themselves and anyone looking angry. Hunting is meant for enjoyment not reality tv drama. This is an emotion contagion meme that solicits a negative response from people viewing it.

I want to see positive stuff. Who wouldn't?

I reflect on the type of person that made or shared in this kind of meme. I wouldn't want to be in the woods with them with that kind of attitude or reasoning. They're spending my precious time kicking the can of nonsense. If  someone brought this drivel up to me while I was out doing hunting or fishing, I would tell them to get back in the truck, go home and login to be with their kind, or never invite them back.

I truly get tired of these memes and that is the only reason I am not passing this one by;  not as an attack on  the maker but the stupidity of the message.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Enemy, Mine?

 

Remember this: To have an enemy, one must be acknowledged, created, and labeled as such.

I logged on to social media. I saw hunting participants arguing over the pivotal issue of trophy hunting with non-hunting participants, who were against killing animals for sport. I felt like an external spectator to these particular arguments. I spoke to people in comment conversation but never got into some brawling free-for-all with a total stranger. I didn't drive my energy to these types of conversation or seek them out. I planted a tree and observed.

Yet on my monitor was the call for knowing your enemy. Enemy spells futility. A great bottomless pit of negative emotions. Of course, I have enemies that showed up to the hospital when they thought I would die. It seems they couldn't live without me or didn't want to move on to another person to hate. My enemy showed me love and concern in a bizarre way. I should have asked, “Why can't you just love me?” When I got better they resumed hate for me.

I mulled it over in my head; enemy. What constitutes an enemy in Hunting? How does this work itself into hunting? Who are these people? What creates an enemy? How do you diffuse an enemy's creation? What is the real issue and how do you at least alleviate the problem?

The first considerations are: there has to be one or more separate sides or teams. A center conflict must exist, which this maelstrom revolves around. The things lacking are: absence of diplomacy, compromise, intellectual discourse, or solving the problem. There is also the pre-existing information that prescripts the parameters of the argument. This type of information is the factual guidelines that dictate the existence of the supposed problem, which can't be ignored.

In brief, here is the situation: hunters and anti-hunters argue over killing animals for sport.

Let us focus on the commonality of the hunter and non-hunter. I consider both activists with a different adjective. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Hunting and non-hunting participants use the concept of conservation and filtering money to activities, while having strict laws that govern the hunting or non-hunting experience. These monies are used by governmental or non-profit agencies. These types exercise wildlife management in the form of veterinary assistance afield, ecosystem monitors, tallying wildlife numbers, and to some extent citizen science. Both groups monitor and intercept poacher activity while interacting with game reserves or the local people. This illustrates a general love of hunting or non-hunting activism. Yet there are those individuals that desire for the two groups to be distinctly separate and at war. A better use of time is to work together.

Each group may or may not work in jobs where animals are in derogatory conditions. They may work in ecological, conservation, or non-science based jobs. They may not work at all but sit on the computer surfing the internet. It aids animals who can't verbalize needs. Action is taken on the part of animals or humans to make hard decisions then carry those decisions through to the end.

There may be hunters or non-hunters that track or euthanize an animal because of suspected disease, nuisance animals (in the way of causing damage to other wildlife or local people), or to stimulate the economy in a impoverished country. Professional and safari hunters do stimulate the economy in a positive way. Governments utilize hunters to help deal with overpopulation through culling and legalized hunting expeditions. Exploitation of wild game is handled at the governmental level to ensure neither hunter or non-hunter is taking advantage of the system in place. They are also contributors to ecosystem and habitat construction via personal money and land management tactics. It is established that this is a fact without discrediting the direct role of science based research the hunter revolves in and out of. There are hunting based organizations that procure money specifically for these endeavors as supplements to cost incurred for the benefit of the knowledge. This knowledge directs the distribution of funds to the best possible treatment of conservation, habitat, and ecosystem management.

Non-hunting participants garner funds to pay for the protection and propagation of species as does the hunter. These funds go to combat exploitation, abuse, ecosystem construction and management, and overpopulation of animals. Overpopulation is approached through adoption after ovarian-hysterectomies or castration. For deer, it is contraceptives. As with hunting, there is no verbalization on the part of the animal on how they wish to live. They are occupants on the human landscape. Thus are treated as indigent creatures at the mercy of decision-makers. These decisions based on what is best for people, ultimately, and not the animal as a whole.

Considering contraries to these positives:

Of course, no one asks the animal about its rights when they are being sterilized or adopted out. That is one of the ironic things about the animal activism stance; wanting to give a voice to the animal yet taking away the animal's choice in its best interest, if it indeed has a choice, to force off a procedure that would end its ability to reproduce. No matter what is being done physically to the animal as long as it survives for a greater good should be enough. Here again you have a group making a decision on behalf of a creature that can't verbalize what it does or does not want. Yet someone makes the decision all the same because it can be a nuisance reproducer. The same goes for hunters. Governmental agencies dictate the legal parameters of the hunter while the hunting participant decides to shoot a animal for food or trophy. No one asks the animal how they feel about it. The reality is both sides force off a decision to act on a creature that can't really say no. I am not bleeding animal activism here but both parties are guilty of some negative oversight.

Animal cruelty cases cause several problems. The outcome doesn't have an argument based on the cruelty inflicted. It stimulates economy but as a deficit because owners or the animal abusers aren't held accountable. Medical staff are presented with the wounded animal then have to use products and services to treat or euthanize the animal. These bills go unpaid, are paid by a non-profit, or someone not affiliated with a non-profit donating money. The bulk of the work does go unpaid because the person presenting the animal wants the medical professional to show sympathy towards the animal with no reimbursement for the material or service used to diagnose or treat the animal. Professionals in business might feel taken advantage of but never say so. It might reflect poorly on them when it hits the public grapevine. This would label the business in the negative. These professionals then go along with the predicament and unpaid bill.

There are some participants from both hunting and non-hunt who have a common sense about them. These people want to do positive work in the world employing channels of education, information, and being a conscientious citizen. They do not bang their head on internet walls. This shows you can be mature, productive, creative and maintain something truly wonderful or worth fighting for. Contribute and promote that narrative.

The other telling issue is dominance on both sides. One side wants to defeat the other through hostilities. Animal based issues fall to the wayside. There is no right way. There are a series of paths that can take you to the same or different outcome. The pivotal moment is making the decision as to which path to take; whether it will or will not be self-defeating for the purpose.

Let us focus on the element of the enemy.

An enemy is a person or group that incites an attack on another. What creates an enemy? Conflict, but it's not necessarily the disease. It's more a symptom. What creates an enemy is the behavior or approach from all sides and how they handle the conflict.

When you consider conflict, approach, and then choice in the way you manage a problem, middle ground is the key. You have to be open to the dialogue. If there is no dialogue, you have monkeys tossing excrement at each other in unlimited supply.

I then reflect over the wordage of enemy in posts. There is an insinuation of some faceless army of people lurking. Am I suppose to be angry at or wary of these people? Are they spooks waiting to attack me (for what reason I am not sure) and ruin my life? Do I want to invite negativity into my psyche? If so, to what end? Now henceforth, should I monitor everyone under this yard stick as the enemy while culling people before I even get to know them?

This is the seed of fear. “Fear is the mind killer”, circa Frank Herbert's book, Dune.

I believe in warnings. If you directly know who certain individuals are or if their behavior could cause a problem. En masse, this is difficult to approach. Is it prudent for me to waste energy on such a thing? When did I get recruited like an eighteen year old going to a war I didn't start? I am not a fan of someone starting a fight then sending someone else to fight their battles. Mano-a-mano, I say.

People are taught to fear and avoid where danger does not exist without question. One issue of hunting is the fear the non-hunting participants could change certain avenues in hunting that would slowly make it obsolete. Facebook might be right about their research on a a virtual emotional contagion. There seems to be a long spread panic by hunting participants on losing hunting all together. If I were not on the internet looking at propaganda, I could be sitting in a boat fishing, oblivious to makeshift hunting issues. Is this panic relocated solely to the internet? I paused to consider the fact I wasn't particularly threatened by my state's mode of governance on hunting or fishing.

To diffuse an enemy's creation, one need only act like accountable adults, who can sit down and have an intelligent dialogue as to the problem. Work it out. Why make an enemy? What good does it ever do? I am not partial to the term ally either because allies are the first people to get tossed under the bus when a better deal comes along. When someone says, “Can you be an ally?”, translated this means can you temporarily help me out? No promises.

Hunting and Non-hunting participants are crucial to life on this planet. Both are interactive parts of the field work that is needed to monitor the ecosystem of Earth as a whole. Both are useful in discovering animal abuse cases, providing information to the scientific realm in the proper fashion, and sources of pertinent education to the public.

These groups employ different platforms with the same common goal in mind yet their approach is different. Each of these could act as a lone agent or supplemental to the conversation of wildlife, domestic animals, and ecological systems.

Each group should be accountable for the decision-making subjugated upon a species that cannot agree or disagree with the treatment. There should always be the truth that enforcement of any policy upon a sentient species is not at the behest of that particular species but the enforcer, their desires, and decision of conservation or exploitation of non-human entities.

More could be done to improve the quality of Ecosystem Earth if the energy for petty arguments were set aside. The welfare of Ecosystem Earth and its inhabitants should take precedence.

In closing, do you decide for yourself where the threat lies? Or do you go along with the pointing fingers?

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

The Crystal Ball of Hunting.

Remember this: It doesn't take a psychic to predict the occurance of a bad event, if every decision with cause and effect is driving a narrative to a tragic end....for someone. It will eventually happen.

I was watching Jim Shockey's Uncharted a couple of nights ago on the Sportsman's Channel. There was this little umble dude about to fall off a log and the natives caught him. He put his face in the camera and spoke. He reminded me of Gru with hair. I heard someone call him Corey then I thought...wait a minute. I think that is the guy from  the Black Rhino debacle. I finished watching the show and wanted to update myself by reading up on Corey Knowlton's endeavors to see what end it came to.

Most of the articles were stating his family's lives were in danger, the FBI got involved, he had security detail, animal activists where threatening his life and Anonymous got involved; or at least someone claimed to be Anonymous.

I looked at Knowlton and couldn't make my mind up over the fact that he looked sickly or stressed to death.

I then see this 19 year old cheerleader that has been in the news for lion hunting imagery circa Bachman.  Some of the things being said here is the fact this person is excited over all the attention she is getting; good or bad. Of course, my first thoughts were that this had FBI written all over it. She truly is nothing more than bait.

No one really is looking at her accomplishments. This should have been relegated to her peers. She is now hashtagged the Happy Huntress, murderess, and a slew of other words. Her narrative right now is not an ambassador for hunting or conservation. Just a twat with a gun killing exotic animals; regardless of her age. Of course that is not my opinion because its futile with this subject matter  but the people at large in the world.

The only reason I am  writing this is a marker for myself. I want to see how much time will pass before the hunting and anti-hunting machine ends the life of a person.  This could be through murder, suicide, happenstance, or whatever. This is not what I lay awake at night thinking about but somewhere it does bother me that it doesn't seem to bother anyone else. I guess if you play in traffic expect to get hit by the bus. I do go about my life and forget these thoughts until I see articles and disputes posted to the net.

The concern I have is this:

How do parents or the individual prostrate themselves or their children out publically to a world that has already exhibited an underlining murderous contempt for hunters? Simultaneously hunters have thrown  gas on the fire of internet conversations, to invite something so negative into OUR world, in the name of hunting or conservation, which doesn't seem so positive anymore based on participants behavior.

I have no idea which way this situation will go. All I see is a group of people or an individual egged on by a group of people in hunting, while putting a target on themselves.

One bright day, an extremist person who is against the idea of hunting is going to decide to make a  clear statement. This statement will be: one or more persons' losing life, limb, or being scarred for the rest of their life. Conditions over this topic are revolving. Its an  escalating situation with lows and very big highs. Anything with this tendency will eventually peak or spill over. 

Disturbed people kill for non-sensical reasons all the time en masse such as James Holmes, Elliot Rodgers, and the Columbine shootings. In the case of hunting, its pretty square the possible reasons an extremist will flip his or her lid. There doesn't seem to be any kind of damage control to hinder the progression of this kind of fall-out by death. If they are far enough away a gun will not help you.

Also the narrative of this young girl's life will be altered. The possibility the narrative will go in a negative direction to come back to bite her later in life is there. All this attention seems great  right now but the downside comes quickly. When you can't even go out in broad daylight of your own freewill because  you never really truly know if the people stalking you have gone away, is a lot for a young person to deal with.

The narrative I see is hunters re-enforcing liberty, freedom, and the right to hunt yet these online personalities are damning themselves to a form of self-incarceration. I have been confused for sometimes on the true reason for this. Hunting, conservation or celebrity? Now because of the pointless conversations in hunting, conservation is under fire.

Hunting participants as a whole are being chucked in with the bad behavior of online personalities that make way more money than the average man. I can not grasp the concept that in order to push conservation and hunting the best we can do as sportsmen and sportswomen is to use the most negative platform and podium to speak from. The other problem is it is not the voice of a hunting collective but a hypish frontperson that is stumbling over his words like Barney Phife whilst shooting us all in the foot, behind and the face for good measure. If you really want to do yourself a favor as a person who hunts, stop kissing Gluteus maximus just to be in the hunting cliche. (No, that is not a Roman  Emperor).

I feel like there are established groups in the hunting echelon that think they are driving the narratives to protect and improve hunting when it is damaging hunting left and right. These groups that we can't see could not give two shits about the rest of the hunters because they want their agenda pushed. Their agenda is going to be the undoing of hunting and chokehold conservation,  if it goes unchecked. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this is a fear driven machine.

I feel truly empathetic towards this young girl because she is a tool in a game. She is just being used for some end that is temporary but the effects will loom over her for a lifetime. I hope she is at least getting a fat paycheck. If she is going to sell her soul young, she might as well be able to pay for a bodyguard.

Mark my words. Eventually someone, somewhere will lose their life or wish they had. Everybody involved will be asking themselves for what end or purpose did it ever serve.

Finally the only conclusion I can come to is an empty pointlessness. Someone is using a young female to anchor a dispute when there are better ways to argue the concept. This is nothing more than kindergarten school yard fighting, where kids hit each other in the back then run away; rinse and repeat.  There is always that kid held as a shield to block the onslaught of blows. Kendall Jones just hasn't felt the full brunt of it yet. Ergo we could ask ourselves, why do grown adults act like children? For rhyme or reason, humans do things all the time that don't make sense.

Hunting is there for everyone; not just for a group with a political agenda.

I think I shall go vomit now.

 Written by: W Harley Bloodworth