Responsibility and Evaluation: Q & A

Remember this: The glare will blind you. Know yourself.

I was looking around social media, following the tunnels of hunting participants. This is what it looked like from a couple of professional African outfitter/hunters.

A herald walks out to the castle keep tower, holds his hands up to the masses and says in a very obvious stream of words, “Listen to me peasants. This killer of lions. This poacher in the dark. We rebuke him.” Then everyone shuffles away.

When you consider the Media giants out there, this commentary becomes no more than watching grass. Somewhere in that grass is a squeak, that no one hears.

I have read everything from don't look at that lion, look at those rhinos, Africa doesn't care, no one in Zimbabwe knows the lion is dead, and Africa has bigger problems to handle.

The villagers are standing around, with there hands out declaring, “What is going on?”

I don't know what is going on in Africa. Only Africans know that. If you went by the commentaries of some professional hunters, no one cares in Africa, especially the poor.

There were some questions I had after reading some articles. This one statement kept jumping out at me. Dr. Walter Palmer stated, “I relied on the expertise of my local professional guides to ensure a legal hunt.”

My questions are these:

If you are a professional hunter/guide/outfitter, selling a service at a business you own, based around trophy hunting, are you not in control of that business and the client during a hunt?

How much of the legalities and details do you dump on the client before and after landing?

Is there no guides to monitor the actions of paying clients to keep them out of trouble and make that business look bad?

Are foreign hunters lured to Africa to hunt big game trophies, then left to their own device once there, like wayward children without adult supervision?

Are foreign hunters being put in senseless situations that could lead to the destruction of their life, at their expense, and thinning their wallet?

Is there no system in place between hunting concessions and research stations, where communication is available to determine points of potential illegal taking of wildlife and flora in that designated area?

Specifically, who is in control and who is ultimately responsible?

I could go on but no one is paying me for this. Where is my donations? I would like to finish those two classes on my biology degree but that ain't happening. I am sitting here spinning my little chair around, trying to make sense of the debacle hunting has gotten into. There is a fine line between hunting and poaching. It is like the wolf with the sheepskin hiding in the flock. You never know when one is going to run out and eat the sheep.

Baa Ram Ewe!

I recalled a conversation I had with a hunter. I am not going to divulge the name because he didn't see me coming. I approach things with a professional attitude when it counts. I decided maybe this would help some people out there. This was my evaluation of references provided and feedback for that particular business, in the hopes it would improve the services given to the consumer. For that one guy that I told this to, take it that you're helping other hunters. 

I am a boss. Enjoy.

Here is a conversation I had with a hunt broker on feedback from the people using his service. These are comments most people will not verbalize to the broker/guide/outfitter.

I did not make this up. I kid you not. I actually did this.

Subject stated: When a celebrity arrives in camp, paying customers are pushed to the background. The celebrity then distracts away from the paying clients.

Subject arrived into camp on different locations where the guide or manager of the camp did not interact with the client, seemed resentful, which caused a sense of isolation instead of camaraderie while in camp. Camp was ill run or the managing guide was not interesting in the business, which caused the subject to decide not to return to particular camp and move on to another guiding service.

More attention needs to be centered on the client. Several subjects voiced this. There might be some disconnect with the condition that the hunt broker, or a member of the brokerage firm goes on a hunt as a hunter with the client, which confuses the client. The client expects to be under the care of the brokerage firm and the guide is secondary. 

There needs to be some specifics on the triage of who is going to be responsible for what, when, where and how. The guide seems to be relieved of this issue because the client initially invests money with the brokerage. There may be some misunderstanding or misconception here as to the true role of the broker, differentiating the broker going on a hunt with a client, but not necessarily involving himself in the process and when the guide actually takes over the responsibility of the client on the hunt. If the client is there to hunt, the client doesn’t need to be confused by administration or feeling they are about to be lead into a ditch.

Subject noted a conversation between guide and broker where guide told broker, the broker needed to pay more attention to the client.  Guide may not understand his role or responsibility during the hunt as it pertains to the broker, if he is hunting, as well or present and the client. There needs to be a clear definition of roles. 

Conversations between hunt broker and guide should not be in the view of client who may not understand what he is seeing or know the content of conversation unless client is simultaneously voicing displeasure to both individuals.

Subject noted interaction by e-mail, up to the beginning of the hunt, was frequent. Later, the communication appeared sparse. When information did come, it was close to the departure date which put stress on the client. This pressure caused client to do research to deal with unforeseen details that might hinder or cause client problems pre- and post- departure from and to hunt location. 

Client felt hunt brokerage firm and guide, having performed the general paperwork and information minus the actual work of hunting should have done these requirements in route enough that the process should have moved along smoothly without the client doing much work. Process needs to be evaluated for loopholes, forms that could be utilized, etc. If the hunt broker or the guide is afield doing a service then there should be a person that is delegated the role of mediator at all times for clients to have someone available to help them through the process and gather information to and from guide service while the guide or hunt broker is involved with some other function.

Multiple subjects mentioned they were put in uncomfortable situations where they questions the actions going on in camp and during the hunt that caused them to reserve their complaint or observation to avoid insulting the hunting guide or broker. The client didn’t want to get blacklisted for being a trouble source but instead endured the scenario. This reservation or lack of a communication outlet with broker or guide potentially caused client to not return again for service at particular sites or using in the future.

Subject stated there did not exist a plan of action during hunts when client could be put in potential danger. Client would also assume all responsibility of harm or death to self; even if guide or broker made suggestions or direction that lead to eventual harm or death.

Subject divulged there was distress at the lack of information that could cause a hindrance of client returning to place of origin.

Subject felt after returning from hunt that they were forgotten or excluded from future hunts; they may have unintentionally insulted or annoyed hunting guide or broker that caused a blacklisting or they were just forgot. There was also the comment about not being appreciated as a client for using the service even if enduring a less than pleasurable experience.

When questioned about costs for shipping body parts of animals for taxidermy into the US or having taxidermy done in Africa then shipped to US---hunt guide and broker couldn’t provide information that should have been referenced from past client hunts and interactions.

Subject voiced the laid back style of the hunting broker clashing with the different personal style of the client but client was made to fit into laid back style. Here this became evident by the lack of addressing issues that arose as problems that needed to be solved or lack of dealing with pertinent details.

Suggestions:

Hunting broker and guide need to have a pau wau on definition of roles when interacting with client. Who is ultimately responsible for the client experience? There would seem to be some issue that exists between the three entities that causes a problem with flow and easy of service. This could be from the moment you meet the client to the final goodbyes or return service. 

There needs to be a delegation of duties. Breakdown exists in communication. If you don’t know what the issues are, write the problems you have had in the past then find a solution. Most requirements are repetition. These requirements should be outlined and set in Moses tablets so when unforeseen issues arise it will cause less stress, less time, and the client should never have to know there is a problem because the problem was dealt with before it occurred. Unless it can’t be avoided. Prior planning prevents piss poor performance. 

One of the main points that stuck out to me was the confidence in the hunt broker and guide. I have thus far received more information about the process from clients not the staff. In most of the businesses that I ever worked in, I was responsible for communicating the products and services to the client in a timely manner. 

This incurred confidence in the client that I was knowledgeable about the process, the service, the product and how they fit into this picture. People do not want to feel like they are not looked after. Confidence in the person providing the service is key. If it is not there, the client will question everything you do, even your validity, as a provider and will doubt your expertise. This is not what you want because once it takes hold it can cause you long term problems with return clients or future clients.

Subject directly said this would probably not be for me. If women didn’t have money do not waste person's time.

Subject didn’t seem to have recollection of hunting; only the mark but did enjoy himself.

I hope this has helped you some and I have a lot to think about here. There was a lot of positive information but this was based around conversation about personal hunting philosophy, hunting goals, and experiences when not addressing a reference.

I will suggest, with all the administration, dealing with clients and paperwork details is not your thing then find a savvy person that can set clients at ease, answer their questions, and a pro-active person that covers all the details so you don’t have to spend time on this. You could spend more time on the client or hunting. You need a constant initial contact person.

As hunters, people rely heavily on outfitters/brokers/guides as authorities of hunting, then hand over their sense of reason, to make decisions for themselves when guided by others.

Outfitters/brokers/and their guides are not always trusted authorities on hunting. They are more experienced but you should know yourself. If not, you might want to get more acquainted with the way you want to hunt verses the way you are lead to hunt, local or foreign.

My moto has always been: Do not try to lead me in a ditch. I will not follow you.

I invite anyone to write about this because this is a crucial trouble source for foreign hunters on African soil. This doesn't need to be bandaged. It needs to be treated like a cancer; cut it out.

You can go donate a dollar to my blog.

After this, I was told to find someone else.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

Hoo-Doo Part 3: The Conspiracy Sacrifice

Remember this: Sometimes it is best to determine that the decoy, is the decoy. Diversions are everywhere.

I have been keeping up with this Cecil, the Lion fallout. One of the most concerning developments is the asking of donations for Conservation after Cecil was found dead using the emotional state of the masses.

His body is not even cold in the ground, so to speak.

I began to turn this in a new way. It was ghastly what I saw, be it true or untrue.

Oh you have to love a conspiracy theory. Just for fun, here is mine.

Cecil, the Lion was 13 years old. What is the average age of a lion hunted for trophy? Males are hunted up to a minimum age to intervene due to infanticide. This is due to males killing the offspring of other males to replace their DNA in a pride. Cecil lived to be 13 years old. He was old for his age and made lots of cubs. He was also involved in a study that may have used hunters as variables to determine the effect trophy hunting and hunters had on given prides of lions or over a certain area in the study. The two went hand in hand, it would seem.

Hunting itself becomes a scientific variable to be considered. It is necessary to the given research that is directed at any animal. If the scientist makes it a part of the study. Hunting could be the facilitator of the research study in question.

A scientist can research the effects of trophy hunting on a given species to determine if trophy hunting indeed is beneficial or derogatory to Conservation.

Add to this, the other variable of watching a human population observing and becoming emotionally attached to a given specimen in a study. This specimen has been elevated over time to representative of that particular species. There are psychological ramifications.

Now, what if you have a known outfitter and hunter, with a reputation to do shady acts. These two are positioned in an area close to this old lion, and this lion is close enough to be lured over to a property. Luring the hunters the whole time, knowing they are going to do something bad. 

It is like a big piece of bait no man can resist. I say remove a bad hunter and outfitter, either way ethically and morally this was wrong. Not to mention a lack of the ability to make a sound decision during a hunt. If it were a set-up, it is like a mouse going after cheese on a mouse trap. Whack, goes the metal when it snaps.

Think about it.

How much damage, in chronological order, could the death of this lion incur? How can damage be swung to generate a benefit?

How easy would it be to spin a story to the media and drive it to an controlled outcome?

This is what I thought just for interest in conspiracy theories:

Retire a 13 year-old, aged lion from a research study using a bumbling hunter and his outfitter. This is one way to remove a bad outfitter and hunter from a landscape.

Subtract out the landowner, who can't control the hunter or the outfitter, once on the property. Eventually, this person will most likely not be prosecuted.

Scientists decide they need to remove Cecil, the Lion from the landscape because he has aged and done his due. Would he have eventually been sold as a trophy hunt like the black rhino? One wonders...

What now, if Cecil's death is a part of the study to observe the law of lion society? Will the scientists let the remaining cubs die? Will they take the cubs to another place?

Are the scientists using this as another variable of death by misadventure at the hands of a hunter? Because of this, are the scientists going to change their parameters for the research study itself?

Does life go on now? Will the general public get updates or will it all fade to black?

In this article, it is stated Cecil, the Lion was seen moving toward a hunting concession. Why did the scientists not warn the hunters in the perimeter to stay away from this lion?

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/07/30/oxford-cecil-the-lion

If it were me, I would have been getting the word out on my research subjects.

Here you have again, an outpouring of funds from the United States. Where is the African monetary support?

Also in this article, is the admission by the statements about the discovery of people's thought on the death of one lion. I would say this is limited to the events around this one lions death; not the fact that there will be trouble in the lion pride due to the ring leader dying. Think of the ramifications. If this if fueled by emotion generated by the the act in which the lion die, people will not be thinking clearly. It is off-the-cuff reaction.

If someone watched Cecil, the Lion and knew what direction he was moving due to luring, how hard would it be just to 'let him go'?

I wouldn't be surprised later after the death of Cecil was leaked to the media, someone yelled, “Gold Mine.”

I hope something good comes of Cecil, the Lion losing his life. It would be a disgrace if he were sacrificed up in order to get more money.

Given the airlines embargoing trophy imports and exports, the death of Cecil, the Lion puts a dent in the narrative, which shifts from hunting being beneficial to detrimental upon Conservation efforts while undermining scientific research projects.

After Cecil, the Lion dies there is an outrage from the given public. This outrage generates interest in donation via the non-profits asking to help through monetary contributions to fund research and conservation efforts. Well meaning people are now being targeted by different conservation groups and non-profits banking on the windfall of funds brought about by the manipulation of the emotions of people infused to the end of trophy hunting, animal abuse, ethically and morally wrong acts by hunters, and so on. 

Cecil dies tragically, the bad guys go to the jail, the scientist make bank, and trophy hunting finally dies because it might not be of any more use in conservation efforts per studies done by scientists. Some would argue trophy hunting is of no benefit to Conservation.

Of course, none of this could be true. All of it is starting to look shady from my pine branch in the woods as I squirrel around for an acorn.

If you were going to make a tragic hero in a narrative beloved, what is the best way to do him in? Once put under the knife, so to speak, how would you elevate the tragic hero into the hearts of the reader?

Even I am getting tired of seeing dead lions everywhere, online.

Life seems to be one person or group acting just as bad as another.If Cecil, the Lion is loved so much. Why not removed his off-spring, raise them elsewhere, and re-introduce them back into the wild? Give them a fighting chance...just this once for the sake of all those people who paid out the nose to donate to the Conservation of African Lions.

I was aghast at the thought, “Was Asland sacrificed? Again?”

Crickets chime up in wee voices, “Grassy Knoll!”

Written by: WTF, Conspiracy Theorist

Take all you can and give nothing back. ~Cap'n Jack Sparrow~

I am not doing the work for you. Look up this kind of stuff to get what I mean:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6979/full/nature02395.html

The Arcane Creatura

Remember this: Progeny is the hopeful path to a better world when taught right. Choose or offer the path wisely.

Have you ever asked yourself, Where did my childhood go? How many positive memories do you have of life before taxes? Do you see a difference in the lives of children now and before you realized it is time to sign up for AARP?

Do you look at your child and wonder if the little person will grow up to be a functioning adult? Did the little human being learn at record pace to keep up with the growing trend of survival and accomplishments? Do you guide your child along, teaching the child about the natural world? As a parent, do you teach your progeny how to co-exist in the world with other things, while being a steward of nature?

To the best of your knowledge, have you taught your progeny to be a human being first?

Good Questions.

Life seems to be one big pressure exerted on you, in succession, once you enter pre-school. Next is the ever growing shadow called adolescence. While the student is in school close to eight hours of the day, as a student, their life is dictated by school government. Some children leave at the ring of the bell to fall into a strange pit of depression, isolation, and resentment.

I read an article entitled, "How To Raise A Wild Child", by T. Edward Nickens, With Phil Bourjaily, Kirk Deeter, Dave Hurteau, and Keith McCafferty in the June 2015 edition of Field & Stream. Throws shade...

Yes, I drive thirty miles, out of my way, to read copies at a local library. I am sitting with 13 issues as I write, on this desk. 

I am not bashing the authors choice of tact in writing such an article. I enjoy most of what Field & Stream writes. I thought it was a good article in terms of learning technical skill of each class of job, as it functions in the outdoor world. 

I felt the article lacked propagating the outdoor person’s mentality on the individual level when it was applied to experiences.

What goes on inside a person when they are learning the outdoors? There are lots of articles by adults. We should have some by children or some videos. That would be nice.I would do it but no one likes me for the things I say. Ole well.....can't make everyone happy. 

You can explain to a person how they should be. This never works because of free-will in the mind and the kind of person they are deep down inside. Some people are golden eggs and some people are rotten, if not given the chance to redeem themselves.

There should always be hope. One must realize this written passage can go for anyone, not just a person centered in or around the outdoors. It is for all.

This fundamental make-up is self-generated through experiences and consequences, internally in the self or externally in others. It is important to how a human proceeds in life. The importance of how the human will treat the self and others in regards to stewardship to the Earth and its inhabitants. It is the spark that shapes your world-view on a philosophy one builds over a life-time.

The well-groomed photographed images appeared to suggest a stereotype the parents could choose from to use as a template to morph their child into some ideal. These children wore brand new designer type clothes with efficient technology in hand to do the job. There are probably parents out there that gauge their children and slowly push them into the slot they think best fits them. You will also find this in schools where students are given aptitude tests to determine if that student needs to become a mechanic, secretary, scientist, or doctor. You cannot be everything. You can try. You have to decide on one something at a time.

Field & Stream writers cover the basic personalities: Hunter, Angler, Woodsman, and Naturalist. Deep in the writing, it is suggested to buy, buy, and buy. You have got to love sublime marketing.

The children on pages 58 and 59 are better representations of what children look like when hunting and fishing. It still sniffs of adulthood. Of course, children are now placed on the fast tract of adulthood to compete. Gone are the lazy days of play from the 70s and 80s. 

Children have to learn to code, work complicated technology, and categorize other people. All the while categorized on a personal level themselves.  Children learn to be divided in subsequent groups as hunters, anti-hunters, liberals, conservative, whites, blacks, indigenous, felons, beauty queens, and so on. After this division plagues them, there are the fights over whom they should hate and distrust. On and on it goes. 

That is one of our shames, if you want to do some shaming; what we do to each other and innocent kids. Social media at its worst is the epitome of adults being poor role models for the little eyes that watch them.

People guide their children into the negative snarls of what it is to be human. For what purpose? To protect them? It really is harming children and the greater good of the Earth.

Going back to the photo of children in the article by Field & Stream. Where are those dirty faces with smiles? 

I remember the only photo my parents ever took of me. I went fishing with my family in this trio of ponds stocked by the neighbor. I was playing in the water with my pole bored, zipping it back and forth. A trout hit my line. It pulled me head first into the pond. My father caught me just as I was about to hit the water’s edge. It was hilarious. My mother caught a bass. I found that picture and laughed. I can still remember the moment.

Why am I so amiss about this article?
  

There is another child Field & Stream neglected to write about or suggest. This is because the trend in some hunting magazines is to promote family and family values as whole units with parents and children with somewhat functional lives.

I struggled with a word to call this child. Why should I try to label such a thing? The Latin phrase Arcane Creatura appeared.

I can only describe the Arcane Creatura. This can be a lonely child, feral yet socialized but isolated from the interactions of human life, with a limited ability to form bonds with others. The Creatura looks and acts normal to some degree. When cast to its own designs will move back into the wild places where it finds comfort. It will have a strong Animus. There will probably be a limited bond with the biological parents. The Arcane Creatura will be left alone to learn about the Natural World, with little supervision. The inner child will be fragile, strong, willful, destructive, and nurturing through each event the Arcane Creatura experiences. The Arcane Creatura will grow into a functioning adult. The mind will stray to the wilderness and the things in it.

Few people ever get close enough to the Arcane Creatura, and know it well.

You will see children such as this. They will be labeled as troubled, with no known psychological problem when tested. You’ll know by the way people say, “That one is off a little bit.” They will learn from every animal in the woods, the trees will whisper their medicines, water will sing its charms, and the Arcane Creatura will listen. It will roll in dirt, climb trees, and roast crayfish over a fire. Mischief will grow ripe within the Arcane Creatura's heart for that is where it finds mirth.

The Arcane Creatura lacks understanding from those quick to categorize. These same people will try to slot the Animus, of such a being, in a way to explain it away for the sake of their comfort. 

There will be a limited need of new technology, clean clothes, or glaring eyes when the Arcane Creatura does not conform. Socially upright people might consider the Arcane Creatura slightly mad.

The Arcane Creatura has a certain element of mystery, even when in the presence of another person. It will play, laugh, run away, come back, and observe you as exotic. You are considered the different one; the one like all the rest. It will laugh at and with you in good humor. It will have hidden depths most will never know. 

The first place you will see the truth of what it is lays in the eyes. 

If you ever meet the Arcane Creatura it will ask, “Did you forget who you are?”

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

The Cecil Hoo-Doo: Part Deux

Remember this: South Carolina Highway patrol quote, “Ignorance is not an excuse”.

Disclaimer: My personal opinion on this tragedy is: It was poor judgment compounded by malicious mischief that killed Cecil, the Lion, if indeed it was Cecil. The lion was a collared, protected animal involved in research for the propagation of lion species in Africa. I am concerned this is going to be one of those weird situations where the whole story is going to be swung as a lie, fed to the media to cause further problems. Media outlets are not just avenues for malicious mischief used by the media itself and per-users. Sensationalism is not something I want to be caught up in. Observe, read, digest; not read and rally the ignorant villagers to grab for the pitch forks and shovels then burn Frankenstein out of his windmill.

Onward.

I read an article entitled, Dentist Claims He Didn't Know Lion He Killed Was Protected by Marie Szaniszio. I rolled my eyes. Not again.

I thought, those professional African hunter-outfitter-guides are making hunters everywhere look like (there are no words here). One source stated Theo Bronkhorst of Bushman Hunting Safaris Limited and the owner of the land was named as Honest Trymore Ndlovu of Antoinette farm were involved, if not the instigators. Makes you wonder how long this sort of thing has been going on.

The dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer, is alleged to have killed Cecil, the Lion during a professionally guided hunt lead by alleged Bushman Safaris in Zimbabwe. Strangers are putting stuffed animals on the doorstep of Palmer's workplace. I would say keep that money spent on stuffed animals and donate to conservation efforts in Africa. The problem with this is conservation efforts in Africa are being usurped by shady individuals.

Instead of letting the authorities do their jobs, the activist police are taking it upon themselves to dole out some kind of social punishment in the form of public shaming. If these people had a wooden stock from Puritan times, I am sure they would put this man in it, then toss refuse at him. This shows the tendency of violence is just as bad as potential to do harm. You are no better than the target you hate.

One must remember that people involved in social internet witch hunts can turn their sites on anyone (innocent or guilty) and destroy that person's life. No one is stopping witch hunt participants from doing harm. This is a form of lawlessness and not being held accountable for consequences and behaviors persons may exhibit or generate via social media. These behaviors can transmute over into public life by approaching targeted individuals on their property to dole out some kind of retribution through confrontation they have no business getting involved in.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I am not writing this to go over the shame/tragedy of a protected, collared lion being gunned by a paying trophy hunter. There are plenty of articles out there to feed the frenzy. I decided this might be better in parts. First you have to get hoo-doo'ed into something. Then comes the event actually happening. Third is the fall out---enter witch hunt.

Learn something from everything.

To refresh this from the article, Palmer paid $50,000 for the nighttime hunt. A dead animal was used as a lure to get the alleged animal off a protected area. It was wounded, tracked, killed, skinned and beheaded. The hunters attempted to destroy the collar but didn't destroy the tracking device. This shows malicious intent. Using reason here, destroying the collar alleges to malicious intent on the part of all involved.

If I were the scientist and found one of my tracking collars in a state with the animal dead separated in such a way, I would have been furious. I wanted to study big cats when I was younger. I can understand the love one could have for a big cat. It is not a love like one has between a domesticated pet and owner. I can only imagine how upset the scientists were when they found the collar. All that time, research and beloved specimen, gone.....

A couple of bumbling hunter-outfitters had stolen hope. Hope to improve a dwindling species's existence.

Maybe there needs to be a check-in station between hunters, outfitters, and scientists where visuals can be presented with a dialogue between both groups as to what should and shouldn't be hunted.

I would think, when utilizing the African landscape for hunting, it wouldn't be too hard to google all those Big Cat conservation sites to see what people adore. It is right there on the internet, in living color. Ignorance is no excuse when you have the world at your fingertips.

Pretty much Dr. Palmer's life by his desire and actions during a hunt has made a crater in his life. Also, the actions of a group of liars help dig that hole deeper. If Palmer commits suicide because of all the pressure he is under, whether he is a good or bad man, causes persons involved to be no better than what people think Dr. Palmer is.

This statement is not to defend Dr. Palmer, but it is the reality of how you can become the very thing resented. It is a disturbing trend in current culture. There is a no-point source of public-induced potential murder of an individual. How can that be right either? How does one claiming to be for the safety of animals and people, call for the outright murder of an individual, while not giving him his due process?

The problem in the articles is: It is alleged. This means the general public still needs to wait for forensics to determine if the head goes to the body. What if, in this strange reality, on that very night, a second group of hunters lurking on the zone line between properties, shot and killed Cecil, then slunk off into the dark for someone else to get the blame. If Palmer's group was participating in this way, why not another group? Palmer states he “thinks” he was the one. What if he weren't the guilty party? There was also the Spaniard, who was ruled out. Someone still killed the lion.

Who knows what the actual truth is by now? What if it turns out to be wrong? Now the flood of hate is causing more damage than intended. Do people just push away their keyboards and shuffle on to pretend they had nothing to do with the outcome? Is it that easy to disassociation oneself from socially hate-induced catastrophe to a human being?

I don't agree with the behavior of the hunters killing Cecil. Nor do I agree with the behavior of the general public.

Someone is going to argue the 40 hour tracking session of the lion could be opportunity for a misdirection. I would love to read the actual report of this debacle. People can do a lot in 40 hours.

Who dunnit?

Stranger things have happened. What if? This has to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. News media will release events before the truth is confirmed. By then, someone is ruined. No one apologizes for it either.

Palmer's party states they tracked the wounded animal for 40 hours. A lion is walking around with an arrow in it or not.

Here my thoughts are: If you use a lure tied to a vehicle, then shot it with a bow and arrow....how can this be called hunting? 

Who would do such a thing to cause a significant blow to hunting itself? 

Palmer would have to state he saw the hunters take the collar off the lion and try to destroy it.

Why is this energy not directed at opening a dialogue with the government of Zimbabwe for allegations of corruption and selling of wildlife for monetary gain in exchange for foreigners to hunt. Why is there not a system in place to indicate who is a licensed hunting outfitter in that area or Africa in general? I know there is a website for professional hunters in Africa.

What is going on in Africa?

I thought somewhere in all that mess there will be a loophole. The loophole of luring the lion off the protected area onto what is private property. Once off, is it no longer protected? I did read one article that stated the landowner didn't have a permit or quota for a lion to be hunted on his property even though representatives for Dr. Palmer stated his permits and paperwork were in order.

I think this same thing can be found in the states. Once outside the protected area, a collared animal can be hunted. I would have to look again to see if regulations have changed but...it could happen.

Dr. Palmer has hunted lions before by his trophy photos. I ask myself, how may lions do you have to hunt to be satisfied? Was going to those lengths worth it?

Dr. Palmer is out of $50,000, all those years of dental school, his reputation, his practice, and his ability to hunt. The possibility of all this potential loss isn't worth the hunting of a lion.

I thought this was a very bad example of hunting shenanigans. If a hunter keeps hiding behind the legality of hunting, eventually that legality will change to not protect hunters acting badly.

It would be an experience to get to Africa, observe what is going on, talk to the people and scientist who live with these problems everyday. It would be nice if hunters would start a dialogue with other hunters who are making the rest of the Hunting Nation look bad. This, makes it harder for everyone. It wasn't even a person against hunting but a hunter, a landowner, and an outfitter who caused the backlash of killing a well-known collared research lion.

This is why I do not want to hunt Africa.

I also wonder who is next?

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

The Hoo-Doo: Part One

Remember this: It is your responsibility, as a consumer-hunter, to question everything. If your senses tell you a given event could be detrimental to your life, limb and happiness, avoid it. Say, “Oh, Hell No!” then walk off from it.

It is easy to get hoo-doo'ed. Being hoo-doo'ed mean to be lied to and robbed under the guise of a truth; someone tricks you out of some belonging. It could also be a lie meant to mislead you in your choices. The liar may or may not benefit from the hoo doo. The liar is taking advantage of your desire for something or their desire for something you have.

Hoo-doos always come before events. Know how to identify the hoo-doo.

Here I want to illustrate how easy it is to be bamboozled by hunt brokers, shady professional hunter-guides, and those advertising through false representation via social media.

You have to love horsemanship and horse people. They come up with doo-zies. Pat Parelli says, “Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.” I proceeded.

A consumer comes along wanting to purchase a service. The consumer gets lead into all kinds of trouble by lack of knowledge, putting trust in someone's abilities without question, false representation on the part of the outfitter, and desire. There are other variables.

A consumer who hunts should be able to say, “No, this particular moment is not right” by observation.

It never is what it appears, for a selected few.

I was researching an elk hunt while I was under doctor's care. I didn't see the harm in looking around, and talking to people. There is a lot to it.

You have to figure a time, a place, an outfitter, pricing, state required tags and licenses, gun issues, knowing how to hunt one, etc. If you are an out-of-state hunter, there are more things you would need to know. It is less of a hassle for someone who lives in that state and can hunt right down the road.

I spoke to a hunt broker. I thought I would inquire. There is no law against inquiring. That is the first step.

I should have known when the broker confronted me with the fact that when he called I didn't immediately pick up the telephone there would be a problem. I brushed it aside. I was busy with life.

I talk to this broker. He seemed nice. He did state, “There are a lot of people judging hunters for what they do.” This is a true statement. Add to this hunters acting badly. This causes all events to be exaggerated out of proportion to the hunters detriment.

I asked for references. I called the references and found other people using the service.

The actual outfitters were talking back and forth with the broker about what I was discussing with them. I knew they would. I had questions, I will not lie. One particular outfitter told the broker I asked to many questions. I decided that if an outfitter could not suffer my questions, then I didn't need to use that particular outfitter, especially when that outfitter was just starting out per the broker.

The outfitter stated whatever the hunter did at camp was not his problem. If they wanted to get drunk, so be it. I decided that if the outfitter didn't care about the safety of others in his care, or how it would affect people from differing groups, I didn't need to get involved with his guide service. I didn't want to go somewhere with a bunch of drunks while worrying someone was going to get hurt. I am not going to pay money for that thrill.

One reference was an outfitter. I had a long conversation with him. He was knowledgeable but the wildlife was nothing more than an item on a tick list. It is not unheard of when you get into a business like veterinary medicine or outfitting to be emotionally removed from the animal. When you get attached to every animal coming through, you just turn into a sad pool of emotion that can't really function in the job. I didn't hold his ideology against him. He would have been a great outfitter to go with. This guy would talk to you. He wasn't afraid of any question you had. I considered him a professional. I went back later and realized he fell into that hunting/anti-hunting trap of a dialogue. Still, he would have been an option.

I went outside the references. After all, these are people used by the person referenced. What if they only speak highly of them?

One person I spoke to said he wasn't going to lie to me. He told me I would be put in a blind by a watering hole. The outfitters misrepresent themselves to some degree. It's not like what you see on television where you walk and hunt the animal. Also, the person was very put off by the lack of covering the details. It was to laid back and issues arose with paperwork after landing in Africa. Those details should have been worked out with the broker-hunter-outfitter before they set foot out to hunt the intended animal. This person was also put off by the fact the broker avoided talking to him. The broker wanted to talk to another person setting up the actual hunt. The person said he would never use them again.

Given the present state of hunting, brokers, outfitters, and hunters are concerned with people approaching them for services as legitimate. I would assume the same would be suspicious of me. I didn't have any thing posted online in the way of trophy photos or run around online proclaiming my privileges as entitlements. I didn't want to look like a braggart. There is something to be said in being sensitive to other people as long as they understand where you are coming from and reciprocate.

There again, people of mischief will stalk you online in hopes they can find a target to expose to make them famous. People just sit an wait for the next online sensation to get involved with, even if it destroys.

I would suggest that if you approach someone running an outfitter service or brokering for hunts, question them. If they can't stand your questions, maybe they have something to hide. It may not be what it seems. Anyone can build a professional looking page to sell a service, that doesn't mean it is what it appears to be. There again, in tight knit communities, someone might be passing a lie on you in order to protect themselves. If the person is capable of breaking a law during hunting and you are not privy to their actions, you could pay someone a job and find yourself arrested. Bad mentality doesn't change often. It just waits for the next victim.

You don't want to be in foreign country hunting, then kill an animal only to find out you have fu-barred the experience. The outfitter didn't intervene on your behalf to save you from a bad decision. A decision that leads to public infamy. Save yourself. Don't wait for someone else, who might be encouraging you to do a selfish act, to stop you.

It does appear a lot of American hunters are prostrated out in media for hunting acts these days, willing or no. Are foreign entities luring American hunters to Africa to hunt only to set them up and feed the information to the media? Is this a way to prostrate American hunters out as rich, entitled people willing to go to lengths to be famous? Or, make Americans in general look overly entitled through the appearance of wanton destruction of wildlife. On top of that, take loads of American money in trade to make a person look bad for nefarious reasons to a world-wide audience.  

Again, don't do something stupid in a foreign country to make your homeland look bad.

One can ramble....

The hunt broker offered an African hunting experience, I explained there were two professional hunters I didn't want to associate with in Africa. He came back later with an e-mail and told me his hunt brokerage was not the one for me. I was to look elsewhere. He must have fished around on the situation. I took this as his business being associated with the two professional hunters. If not, at least I was enlightened by some of the references and people I talk to that diverted me from a bad experience. I saved myself the trouble right there. Bad people, bad experience. Maybe they just didn't like questions from a female hunter? Be no one's fool.

I put the elk hunting scheme away for another day. If I do go I want to go with a responsible professional that is knowledgeable in their craft. If the outfitter, hunt broker, or guide treats you like you are shifty and doesn't want to answer specific questions related to the details of a hunting expedition YOU are Paying for, Move on. Find someone else. It might be an accident waiting to happen.

You are responsible for yourself and actions. Save yourself.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Catting Around with Tumors.

Bleeding Growth on Catfish

Remember this: Follow the water.

It was morning. I found myself standing on a bank doing specimen fishing. I put the fish in the water. I want to make sure they are healthy.

I was buzzed by something that turned out to be a hummingbird. Another great win for habitat building. Something was stealing my crickets off the hook.  I got a hit. I am confounded by the fact when a catfish hits your line, the fish can feel heavier than a regular exercise weight. It becomes heavier because it is dangling from a string attached to a vicariously, but yet sturdy black bream pole. It might be my wanting the fish to be huge. I pulled the catfish up on the bank. I realized my line had come off the bent hook. I picked up the catfish to see a bleeding growth protruding near its dorsal fin. I thought about not putting the catfish back in the water. I decided to toss it into the other side in case I could find someone who wanted a live diseased fish to study. I caught another catfish with no apparent skin problems. These catfish did not originate from this body of water. 

On another adventure previous to this day, I caught a catfish in a major waterway system by a place that pumps water to another location in another county. This catfish had a bulbous tumor growing between the pelvic and anal fin. The integument had not ruptured yet. It was the size of a ping pong ball. Here are two catfish coming from the same place with questionable meaty growths.

The protruding growth on the catfish from my habitat was observed to look like proud flesh.

Proud flesh is an excess of granulation tissue when a wound is healing. The problem with proud flesh is it will keep building on top of itself until a big mass is over what use to be a common wound.

I owned a horse that cut his hoof in the coronary ban. This formed a weird hang nail. This hang nail eventually got caught on something and ripped lose. Surgery was required but the area began to grow out of control. I was informed by the veterinarian at the time to apply formaldehyde on my horse's incision to burn off the proud flesh. I eventually had to have a second surgery to repair the damage by an equine specialist I was working for at the time. The problem did not occur again. The equine specialist informed me the first was a botched attempt at realigning the coronary band, which failed. 

I have also seen bleeding growths in dogs via a radical mastectomy. The growth was excised then tested to find out it was cancer. Within two days the tumor was back the size of a melon.

The problem with this train of thought was: a week before I pulled out a shellcracker hybrid with a mass just like the catfish on its side near the dorsal fin. I thought maybe it was a fluke, virus, or other parasite. These were fish stock purchases from a farm.

Above this little area of water is elevated farmland. It is getting hit with farm chemicals religiously. There have been times  I would walk out on the porch to get hit in the face by something a yellow airplane is spraying on windy days. This causes the chemical to be carried by the winds instead of land on the intended place at the dose rate. Then it is to be sick for a week.

There is a two mile stretch of road I run and walk. Near a church, during hot days, you can smell the stench of chemicals coming out of the ditches. If you look in the ditch with standing water, the water has that rainbow effect of the non-soluble residue on top you see when a car is leaking antirfreeze or oil. 

I sat at the observing tower thinking.

I thought on catfish growths and tumors. Tumors indicate a problem with the state of health and well-being of a creature. I thought on contamination of water and land sources, watersheds, etc.

I looked around for information.

I was a little put off by the lack of research on this kind of thing. Chemical causes were the central point of focus in most studies.

I was reading about PAHs being in soil sediment, air, or oily substances. PAH stands for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. An example of an air PAH is moth balls.

Catfish lurk near soil sediment in rivers looking for mussels.

Imagine you are driving down the road then have to stop because the county is asphalting the road. Rain falls several days. That water travels down through whatever watershed lures it. Along that path, what comes off that road can build up or move on to a larger body of water. Asphalt is noted to be a source of PAH.

PAH is also in fossil fuels and creosote. Creosote is a carbonaceous chemical formed by the distillation of tars, pyrolysis of plant-derived material such as wood or fossil fuel. This stuff was used as a treatment for seagoing and wood structures to prevent rot. This could be found in railroad ties and bridgework.

A long time ago, in this very area, wooden ships were treated with pitch to make sea-going vessels. There are places where you can go and see the black stuff leaking into the river from the bank. You just have to know where to look.

Add in plants being within five miles of the river, digging for sand and coquina.

The problem with PAH, as I understand it, is PAHs do not degrade. PAHs sit there a long time.

I recall one fisherman telling me to soak my bait in WD-40. Undoubtedly, catfish have their own form of bio-hazardous crack. I laugh here, but a catfish could be the equivalent of a drug sniffing dog. He does his business in the river as a garbage control officer. The only problem is there is no haz-mat suit for his endeavors. Reminds me of the sad way dogs always lick up anti-freeze. It's irresistible. 

When you consider the direction water travels above, through a watershed and feeds out into a body of water, the concern here is: over a period of time how much contamination is actually building up in any given place without efforts to assess locations along the watershed route, as potential hazards of contaminants and pollutants. Also, without knowledge of these hotspots can there be anything done about limiting exposure along those routes in higher than normal volumes that can eventually trickle down to a bigger body of water and affect the life in that cycle in negative ways, long and short term.

I had more questions.

I would wonder if the problem is actually coming up from underneath through watersheds where water travels. Documentation I read seems more concerned with the superficial routes of travel.

I travelled down to this section of the Santee near the coast at a boat ramp. I put my foot in the water on the edge. It was greasy and smelled rank of chemicals. Just touching the river water made me feel unclean and itchy. It could have been just the natural consistency of the river mud.

Another location I took the boat down had high banks. The banks were greasy and black. When you touched the bank, it was sticky.

These places were within 200 miles of each other on a map dot.

What starts out as no more than pulling in a catfish becomes a concern over watershed health, transfer of contaminants over a watershed as it accumulates on its way to a big body of water, water quality control, factors above and below ground affecting points on a liquid-land highway, and how these factors can contribute or affect given species, water, and humans alike. Not to mention any disruption of sediment by mechanical means near the location of a river system or its tributaries.

Water should be our concern as well as those pollutants and contaminants that are flushed out to sea, along with plastic and trash that do not belong in the drink.

I hope this makes you think. It never hurt anyone to do further research on the issues of water quality, watershed health, or any program that could contribute to a strategic opportunity to do some local conservation on your property. What is happening on your little piece of dirt could be a symptom of something much bigger. It always starts with a cough.

We should be doing more about the health of catfish and their habitats. If it doesn't look healthy, something is wrong. Look into it. Eventually it will spread to other living things.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Links to read:

http://www.bayjournal.com/article/chemicals_not_viruses_more_likely_cause_of_catfish_tumors_

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecologicalservices/ecissues/skintumors.html

Just because Science is awesome.

http://vet.sagepub.com/content/31/1/8.full.pdf

http://www.cldavis.org/cgi-bin/download.cgi?pid=1139