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~
