The Doomed Buck

Remember this: No good deed goes unpunished.

This story is an example of why well-meaning people, or ego-centric people wanting to be special, should not make wild animals pets. Transport the animal to a professional wildlife rehabilitation. Do not tame it.

I wanted to cook some chili. I went to the store but forgot it was closed on Sunday. On the way home, I saw this small buck, with crooked, velvet antlers on the side of the road. It was about 36 inches tall at the head, with two 6 inch pronged horns. The weight was around 45#. We call this a 45# suki.

I was worried the little buck would run out in front of my truck, so I was creeping along. One time before, a ten-point buck charged my car and jumped into the passenger window, so I try to avoid a repeat of this misadventure. I couldn’t see the deer behind me, but saw an on-coming black SUV, then pulled off onto this dirt road to lead the buck off the highway. It was chasing the truck like a dog. This is not normal deer behavior.

Here were two situations: I could hit the deer with my truck or watch as someone else hit the deer. Either vehicle could have suffered damage, if not harm to the drivers and the deer.

The little buck followed the truck off and up the dirt road. I got out making sure it was gone, but it wasn’t. I tried to run the little buck into the woods, but it wouldn’t go. Finally, it walked up to me and started licking my hand. This is not wild deer behavior.

There were marks on the little buck’s coat that looked familiar. I would later realize someone could have shaved it and the marks were from chipper blades, probably a No. 30 or No. 40 surgical blade. The deer was just getting hair growth back. Because of this, it was a possibility the animal was shaved to be kept inside of a house because of shedding issues. I ruled out the thought it might be poor diet and hair loss. The squares of missing hair throughout the body were too surgically perfect. It is the end of August, so it should be going toward a winter coat.

There was a man that lived down the road. I returned some of his beagle dogs that ended up behind my house. The little buck followed his car home, tried to get up on his porch, and enter his house. This upset the man greatly, who was a deer hunter, but he didn’t want anything to happen to the little buck. It wasn’t his. It wasn’t mine. I asked him did he want me to call the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. He agreed, but that was a mistake.

The field agent reported the little buck would most likely be euthanized. He was going to check with the wildlife biologist to determine the protocol for handling the situation. I wasn't surprised or maddened by this news. It was expected. Hunting season is almost upon us here in this state. I told the field agent the man felt responsible for the deer because it was in his yard. He didn’t want anyone to report him for owning a wild animal. I don’t blame him. I told the man not to feed it, maybe it would wander off in the night. I left.

To me, without proof other than the clipping of the hair and the easy approach, clinging to humans, and no outward presentation of disease, the deer was tame.

The problem with this little buck was, unless it went back into a pen, the animal was doomed. Someone had doomed this animal. It could die by bullet or arrow on a corn pile, be hit by a car, catch a disease from wild stock, pulled down by dogs, or die by misadventure due to not knowing how to be a wild deer, unless he goes into a wild group to follow by example.

The DNR officer reported there was no way to transport the animal. I told him, even if he did there was no guarantee the animal wouldn’t migrate back out to residential areas. If someone would have come, I had a way to transport it to the wildlife managed area with the officer’s presence.

The other problem the people who take wildlife and tame them cause is: introducing strangers to situations they otherwise would avoid, to be pulled into legalities, not of their making. This could be happening upon a problem but when the law comes, somehow you are considered the guilty party.

I did some investigating. I can not prove any one individual but it was not a surprise to find people doing taming practices with deer.

I found a video of a local woman feeding penned deer, with her mouth, on social media. The page was public and I was sure the Department of Natural Resources knew about these people. I assumed their papers were in order due to public content. Could the little buck have escaped or come from there? I don’t know. There is also the possibility it was someone else not found on social media. This is the boonies after all.

I wondered why the little buck tried to stick his muzzle in my face when I squatted down. This is not normal wild deer behavior. This deer had gotten use to a person doing a certain repetitive act for it to learn such a thing.

This poses another problem: A tame, penned deer being released or escaping into a wild population. What if, two weeks from the time I visualized this buck, it wandered off into a wild population and broke with a disease? It was possibly pen born or found then raised in a pen or house, with low immunity to the outside world and its germs.

This is an issue you find in farmed deer when they escape but are re-penned. The animal would have to be quarantined for a certain amount of time because of the potential of passing disease, if the animal came into contact with a carrier in wild stock.

This situation brings up the problem of the animal causing damage to a motorist because it doesn’t know not to chase cars like a dog. The person who hand-fed and raised the animal from a baby, is out-of-sight, out-of-mind and will not be held financially or morally responsible for a deer that either escape their care or they turned loose. The motorist will be eating the damage bill, which is not fair.

The homeowner and I were frustrated, not because we couldn’t hunt the animal, but because someone had taken something innate from the animal, and left it in the condition of no more than a child, not knowing any better. It was the makings of a sitting duck, bearing a gigantic target over its head, in rain cloud fashion.

I hope if it were someone taming deer like that, they stop or do not do it again. It is harmful to the animal’s well-being and existence.

Blame it on my inner Greek. I could only feel pity for its plight.

In closing, it is the ideas, strangers bear the burden of conscience to protect something that doesn’t know it is doomed, because of learned behavior from a human being, who is released of the little buck’s fate. A little buck that could have grown in the wild, given a chance to thrive, passed on his genes, and run free many years, instead of its life cut short. 

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Angelia's Birds: Golden Eagles

Remember this: If you forget your camera, things appear, much to your exasperation.

I was in the midst of a bad day, so I thought I would go to the river and creep the woods. It is way better than creeping the internet and no harm done. 

I was sitting in my truck when a big shadow passed over three times. I thought it was a spirit, come to haul me off for all my good and bad deeds. I got out and looked up. Sure enough there was a couple. To add to that, they were breezing in with a clutch of vultures and a two red-tailed hawks. 

I pulled a chair out my truck and enjoyed the show. They disappeared with the air current. I walked down the river bank because it is elevated above the water level and the grass is not all over the place. 

I got deep in the bush and heard two distinct growls that sounded bearish. Was it a warning? I took it that way. Decided I didn't want to be the honey pot for the day and skee-dattled. I didn't think beating the creature to death with my flip flop would work. I thought about going back tomorrow to scavenge down the side of the river to a point,then hike back. 

I went back to my chair and they were back in full force. Birds were everywhere. This was about 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm. I was the only one down there. 

My camera is man-down, and I only have the cell phone camera. It is better than nothing. 

I visited the other place they were noted to be out. They must have migrated down the river on a hunting expedition. It has rained and is going to rain in a few hours, so the river is rising some.

I really don't have anything philosophical to add except, I have been very fortunate over my life to see the things that I have seen, even if it is not an international event. 

For God sake, if you see feathers, leave them where they lay. It is illegal to have them without a permit. 

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Outdoor Sports: Employment Discrimination

Remember this: You are being researched by employers. The employer’s personal opinion on activities and thoughts applicants have in life, could possibly bias the employer choosing a person who enjoys the outdoor sports for employ.

Today I attended a workshop that was geared toward resume building and application. This was to update my knowledge on the new format that is now being pushed to find employment.

During the section on resume editing, I asked the facilitator a question. My question was: Can one of your previous jobs be offensive to a future employer?

She stared at me and said, “I don’t know. What have you been into?”

I looked at her with a cat-eating grin and gave a drawn out, “Well…” We both chuckled.

The particular job I would like to use as an example is the time I worked in a wild game processing business that only processed deer meat.

In this particular job, hunters would drop off deer and it would be field dressed on-site and then processed into sausage, hamburger, cube steak, etc.

Here was employment that could be frowned down on by those who do not agree with the taking of wild game for food or sport. I was reading some of the questions about people who support the activities of hunting being as guilty as those doing the hunting. I thought it was because of enabling. That complete series is for another written piece.

What if one of these people worked in human resources at a job you wanted to apply for, but used a previous job as a reason not to hire you because it was based around harm to animals?

Is this fair? Could it happen? Has it happened? Is it discrimination?

Another example is this blog that I write. I am looking at different points of interests but it is based around outdoor sports, which now, thanks to hunters that are bad examples, this can now be frowned upon on by a future employer who doesn’t personally or professionally believe in hunting or fishing. My points of view have probably raised an eyebrow or two.

I had a long conversation with the facilitator about this. Should I leave this one job off my resume and application? Of course, this was a job I occupied while working two other jobs at the same time.

How much of our previous experiences should we edit in order to get a job? Should these jobs considered unsightly, be condemned because activities such as hunting have now gone under scrutiny by non-hunters, animal activists, and scientists? Scientists have now gotten on the bandwagon with the super predator narrative since the Cecil debacle. I didn’t think that was a new concept. That information is holding hands with climate change, habitat fragmentation, and on-coming extinction of species. Corporations dug holes in the earth, fracked it to pieces, and polluted up the waters.

I was told to remove it from my resume and application because it wasn’t relevant. The facilitator told me that in jobs for which I was applying that these employers should be well informed on the condition of hunting and outdoor sports. The employer should understand a working function of those aspects of life that are facilitated by person endeavor through the understanding of biological processes. What if the scientific mind is overruled by the emotional, judgmental mind?

Randomness and the ability to deviate from expected outcomes and thought can blow the little boat of potential employ out of the water.

It would be different if I were applying for a job in the hunting industry, field sports, or a place like Bass Pro Shops. This would be a relevant place to list such an employment history.

Knowing the depth and ease in which employers can hack your account by building business pages, to which you solicited a friends requests toward the business on social sites such as Facebook, can look deep into your private affairs and posts, to judge you as a potential employee or not.

What is considered to invasive when employers want to hack your life with every known technology at their hands to discover the real you?

I say this, but when someone commits a crime or is accused of one, social media sites are right there, ready to give over your personal information to help build an unsubstantiated and circumstantial case. This evidence can be misconstrued as something it is not. Your reputation is destroyed, innocent or not.

Could some examples be illustrated to test this possiblity?

An example would be if you friend requested the local employment center. The employment center accepts your request then can see everything you have posted on private and public accounts. If you have booty shots or naked women on videos, this is your preference. Your lifestyle and activity choices could land you in the hot seat.

Another example is a trophy hunter posting his photography of hunted species on the internet. This hunter goes to look for a job but is denied. What if that hunter was turned down because of his personal activities instead of his stellar work history, experiences, passion, and cover letter?

Should you live your life living with the anxiety that you will be penalized because you decided to hunt and fish to feed yourself, show your pride and happiness at doing so, or write about issues plaguing the outdoor sports?

Is it worth the risk if there is no pay-off?

I eventually watched as she hatched away at over twenty years of jobs and experiences to one page. I felt good about the progress.

It still lingered on my mind; all those things that an employer can hold against you in the hiring process, without knowing or meeting the person you are, just the one you were trained to pretend to be because employers have been taught to go for a certain molded employee. The problem with this is: Once the employee is out of the mold, the individual hired may or may not work out. The job will test the person, the worker will emerge, and progress will be made.

Think about the present state of the outdoor sports when it comes to hunting and fishing. Think about the negative connotations set against hunters at this time due to bad examples and bad publicity. The next time you apply for a job or share your life with an employer, if not in the hunting industry, could that be held against you?

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Required Reading

Remember this: No harm ever came from reading a book. 

I have been engrossed in a book called, “Hope for Animals and Their World. How Endangered Species Are Being Rescued From the Brink”, written by Jane Goodall with Thane Maynard and Gail Hudson.

I do not like book reviews. The purpose of a book, such as this, is meant to make the reader think, consider what is being conveyed, and help the reader formulate a view point based on someone else's endeavors; read, absorb, think, respond.

It should be required reading, based on ease alone.

There were several good questions put forth. A concept I would like to approach is protectionists. This term was applied to a group against intervening on the part of the California Condor, at a time when extinction was critical. The protectionists wanted to offer more protection in the wild but if this supplement didn't work, then the animal was allowed to die as no more than a footnote, sight unseen, in the wild; another name on a very long list of fallen species. I don't think I have seen too many things die with dignity, not even humans.

The scientist for saving the California Condor had to sue to get permission to remove wild condors from their habitat and implement a breeding program for reintroduction.

Thank the Cosmos, no one listened to the protectionists!

One point I have become aware of in my readings and writings is the existence of groups of people, outside of the citizen realm, that makes decisions, such as these, in the stead of endangered and abundant wildlife, on the part of everyone.

There is the word protectionist, that in no means describes a person with the mindset to save or protect, merely to let exist without human intrusion, even to an untimely death. How can this be protecting a creature? I even questioned protectionists being equated with conservation, because that is not their agenda. The protectionist agenda seems to be protect and conserve the area, allow no human intrusion upon the wildlife from birth to death. Nothing is being conserved with this agenda. Letting something merely exist does nothing about the problems that will plague that system from the outside. It is not in a bubble.

How can someone professing to protect an animal on the brink of extinction, by standing in the way, then try to block efforts to propagate a species,morally and ethically, regardless of success or failure? How can someone stand by and say, “I just let it die.”

This is a little different than having an animal before you, with a terminal cancer and absolutely no hope of treatment, or even surviving treatment.

Makes you wonder how many endangered species died because of this mentality. Yet, protectionists believe their stance is morally and ethically correct.

These do not sound like stewards of anything. To some degree, it sounds like a mean way to come back on someone and say, “I told you so. Now it is dead”, without any thought to intervention to block attempts. It is a set-up for failure and retribution.

This is as dumbfounding as people going into the woods to shoot Bigfoot before anyone can see such a thing alive. After that, the Human Alien will probe Bigfoot until the cows come home.

Not to ruin your read, this book is full of one relevant example after another on the people that intervened on the part of the animal, bug, etc, to attempt efforts of captive breeding and restore endangered creatures back to wild population status.

Once again, humans included in the ecosystems of life.

One such example was of a falconer that intervened on the part of peregrine falcons becoming diminished. Although, Goodall doesn't agree with the conditions raptors are kept in and handled as hunting birds used for field sports in falconry, she was very enthusiastic and compromising with the trade-off of intervention on the part of the hunter. He loved his birds and wanted to see them restored to previous glory. He accomplished that goal through hard work with the help of may people, just as Goodall accomplished her goal of collecting stories for her book.

There is a section on the Black-footed ferret. I was perusing my feeding stream and read an article update about the use of 20 year old frozen ferret sperm being used in current times to impregnate females to increase numbers. 

A prime example of how a hunter and a non-hunting conservationist can work together, regardless of differing life views. It is the outcome that counts.

The glue that ties this book together is recognition of problems, no matter the cause, and action taken on the part of scientists and regular people to become stewards of the natural world. The outcomes, without promise of what the future holds, gives the read a sense that it is possible to slowly turn the tides on a planet in trouble. All one need do is be aware and acknowledge the predicament. Then plan stratagems on solving the problem at hand.

If you are a hunter or anyone thinking of, or involved in conservation efforts, this should be on your reading list for sure.

It is a process to watch this ongoing saga of animal lives and the people who help them, hunting or not.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Conservation: Nature's Sake or Human Benefit

Remember this: Humans have never stood outside of Nature. Humans contribute equal portions of good and evil.

I read this article called, "The Battle for the Soul of Conservation Science", written by Keith Kloor. Read between the lines, man,read between the lines.

I was aghast at the behavior of papered, intelligent beings living in Ivory Towers. I took a couple of drags off my Capri Sun, straw hanging in my mouth, as I quietly mouthed, What the F*#K?

Is this what people do when they get degrees? Einstein might be rolling in his grave at the thought the science community has now transversed social media with its twitter-like wars in those hallowed halls of academia. The sad thing in this article, two prominent scientists exhibited a poor role-modeling example to young up and coming ecologists.

There are allegations that this debating system has caused a lot of usurping of productive discourse, funding, progress, and not to mention the breakdown of mutual colleagues ability to work on a problem to solution.

My input on this is in regards for Nature's sake or human benefit is this: Humans live in Nature, even if it is inside the buildings of industry. We interact as a part of the biome Earth. We are not floating outside in dark space, watching everything like a God. As a consumer and producer of by-products, humans have to benefit to exist, otherwise we die in less than dignified ways. There is a mutual relationship between Nature and humanity that exists, even if it is imbalanced by human actions and endeavors. Humans are a part of the narrative, even when we write upon Nature's ways. Research is done in parts and not a whole. Research should start taking into consideration all the variables that are reasonable to the problems and solutions.

The first great question was: How useful is science and the results when applied. I wanted them to come down to my woods and go for a boat ride or a walk. Sounds like they need some realism in their lives.

I can concur with Karieiva to include the complete ecosystem of the world in the conservation conversation. There are two many times when science is locked into a location designated as a national park, protected wilderness area, wetlands, or refuge. 

That comes to my point on several readings where I have seen it stated in scientific assumption that some variable was not given appropriate consideration in its role as a variable in the overall scientific study. Sometimes this lack of consideration, determines whether or not a variable should be examined. The problem arises when this variable should have been considered but the outcome of the study falls on its face, temporarily or completely.

Are views on Nature and how to protect it, narrowed from a scientific perspective? 

I interject here another scenario, has the rift between the common man, scientists, hunters, and government become such a vast chasm that in order to work together, there has to be a separation of human and their chosen conservation acts?

Scientist want to save. Hunters want to save. Animal rights activists want to save. Government wants others to do the work while doling out the funds. Yet, no one wants to work together.

No surprise there on why the world is in the state it is in.

Another question was: How do Earthlings best preserve the last vestiges of the natural world on a domesticated planet?

That is right Earthling. You are living on a domesticated planet and someone finally said it.

This one scientist, Soule, wants to save Nature from humanity. In his arc, humanity stands outside as an enemy instead of as an acting part of the circus of Life. I have indicated this thought process in other writings. Humanity is separated from Nature by his count it would seem. This is flawed because of his exclusion clause. In his spec, the things in Nature only have value. Man has no value, much like the Dallas's Safari Club going into Africa to indicate the wildlife has value, not the people so much. Or, so it goes.

The other scientist, Karievia, is tired of the gloom and doom of reported results.

A truth here is: Nature and its contents are under seige by the workings of Man. Yet, humanity is working on correcting that problem. At least, we will go down trying.


Why is it such a problem to call for new approaches in science? That is what science is for; approaching problems from some questionable and unquestionable directions to get to the answers.

Kareiva and Michelle Marvier wrote an article where humanity was included in the conservation dialogue. Finally, humanity is included. Conservation as a nature-centric enterprise has a lot of humans running around in it, once you start considering how hunters and citizens have been saying all that they have contributed. Why not consider that variable in the overall plan?

Why is there a problem when someone states, "Houston, we have a problem?" 

This article is an example of how regular people leave it up to academia to answer the problems of the world, yet scientists are working with latent, outdated ideologies and practices. The world changes. The mentality of the scientists needs to be ever-evolving and open to things that could solve problems, instead of holding onto Linus's blanket with their fingers in their mouths. 

This is why one must be pro-active and read what these people are up to on your dime. It is your world, too.

I thought the picture I provided did the article justice. Many people fighting it out and no one getting the message. Someone should rethink bringing assumptions to a knife fight, that is in dire need of some cold, hard, factual depositions. Bring the science and not the fear.

I have no control over the homo-erotic nature of the painting. You're welcome.


Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Here is the article. There is more. Enjoy.

http://issues.org/31-2/kloor/

The Viable Connection

Remember this: It takes more than a plane ticket and two weeks in the bush to form a connection to an animal, unless it is all in your head.

Two days ago, I attended a one-on-one workshop. The facilitator gave me some worksheets with questions to answer. As I sat reading over the questions, I was trying to determine a short answer for them. My mind drew a blank. It was things I knew. Over the course of the workshop, I finally just looked at the facilitator and say, “I am going to be honest with you. I should know the answers to these questions, but I am having a problem articulating how I should reply.”

Here it is: When replying to debate and reactionary commentary, the person making the statement really needs to stop, drop, and roll before answering to avoid the back and forth of confused rebuttals and remarks.

I reread my pieces to make sure I might not make sense. Rethinking your position will not hurt you, especially when you have several sources of influence bearing down on you. Lead yourself.

In the commentaries of Big Game hunters defending their stance on hunting exotic animals, you will hear the hunter make a reply about the true connection or intimacy they have with the downed beast. This is from that particular hunter’s mentality.

Is this a true connection (mutual sharing of self through intimacy), a rapport (trust and respect), or is it propaganda hogwash to excuse their behavior and endeavors as relevant? Is the hunter convincing self, what they are doing is okay, in such a short time frame?

I zoomed in. This might be the possible reason this doesn’t fly when trying to explain hunter-hunted mentality. If you received funny looks and rude comments, this might be why.

If you live in America, get on a plan to Africa, then spend two weeks in the bush, and finally shoot an animal, does this constitute a long enough period to form a true connection?

I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. You are more likely to build a connection with the people you are being guided by or hunting with. When it comes to the animal, it is not aware of you. This causes a one-sided event on the part of the hunter’s perspective. The hunter believes there is a concrete connection between hunter-hunted. This is not real.

Consider the short period of time and zero interaction between hunter-hunted. One can consider this a delusion on the part of the hunter. The only time you will get intimate with the hunted animal is after it is dead, and you are field dressing it.

Pseudo-rivalry that exists in the mind of the hunter could fuel this erroneous belief there is a connection, but there is not. This pseudo-rivalry is not known to the beast. The animal may instinctual realize something is stalking it. Evolution has hardwired this instinct.

Where intimacy is concerned, when you are yards away from the hunted, there can be no sense of it. That is what people tell themselves to make it alright. The hunter is not forming a friendship with the hunted. As far as a close familiarity, that is weak tea compared to a hunter that has been studying and questing after an animal for ten years, to the point the hunter decides chasing the animal is enough, then lets it go. That is forming mutual respect for your quarry. If the quarry is crafty enough to out maneuver you, you let it go. Someone else might take the animal down, but not at the expense of your ethics and mores.

There is some romanticizing of the idea of big game hunting on the African continent. There are people who will sale this idea to those willing to buy into a dream. It is pretentious.

A long term, true connection would exist where a human cares for an animal in such a way, that trust is built between the behavior of animal and human. You will find such a thing with abused or untrained animals undergoing long or short-term interaction with their human. These connections evolve into human-animal relationships and bonds. The animal possibly could have a prolonged life under the care of the human. The animal will even come to accept the human into the pack or group, and protect or defend the human. There will be attempts at communication or the human will just know what is going on based on the animal’s behavior.

You will not find this in the hunting experience. There is no relationship, no trust; no connection because the animal is short lived due to its eventual death at the hands of the hunter.

Sometimes you will hear a hunter say, “I love that animal more than you will ever know.” It is not the individual animal but the concept of the breed in particular. The concept of the deer represents food, sustenance, primal desire to stalk and hunt to be as a participating member of an ecosystem. You are already a part of the cycle but the animal draws you further in.

This might be the intimacy spoken of; being more in the life cycle and a part of it, but not to a destructive degree to the overall system or the creatures that share space with you.

Humans are viewed as separate, like an interloping deity; are outside the system, disconnected to its parts.

We form true connections with people because we share camaraderie in the hunt, learn about their way of life and form long-term relationships with those we come to know. 

True connections are formed with immediate pets and animals we come to know over a period of time, where our emotional attachment takes precedence.  

It is hard to believe that a person can form a true connection or intimacy with an animal as an individual, in less than two weeks without learning any of the long term nuances of the hunted.

It is the equivalent of hunting and terminating a stranger. The animal does not know you, and you really knew nothing about it.

Be honest. Honesty does work.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

A Vested Interest: Living Commodities

Remember this: Thought and reason see through to the human being.

In the story of early human development, humans lost most of their hair. When early humans lost their hair, they wore the fur and skins of animals to protect them from the elements of Nature.

We learned the importance of animals as mutual beings, living in and outside of our daily lives. We realized the animals ability to sustain us.

Over time, animals became important. Humans elevate animals above themselves, and treat animals as family members. This is not always true when you consider animal abuses. Somewhere in time, some have learned to treat animals as inanimate objects to be used and discarded, regardless of care. People are treated just as poorly when you look at human trafficking. Animals and people can be considered valueless. It doesn't take much work to find photographs and information that illustrate animals and humans are in equally disturbing conditions.

One animal in particular, humanity has treated callously. It is the human animal.

Wildlife and domestic animals have value as resources. More so, they are living commodities.

What happens when resources and living commodities outweigh the value of a non-commodity human being?

I removed my mental post-it note of African hunting and wildlife. What did I have left over in this story of Africa?

African wildlife and trophy hunting is a people problem.

There was a quote from Safari Club International, “The surest way to persuade an indigenous population to preserve animals is by giving those animals financial value. And the surest way to give them value is to allow them to be hunted, with the locals getting the proceeds.”

I took a pause. Translated this means, "let me get my foot in the door."

Proceeds. 

Is this delineated by locals getting meat and someone else getting money? Exactly what does that monetary audit entail, when you want to see an itemized list of where every dollar goes, for the sake of argument. Someone should be able to provide ledgered proof as to expenditures and profits.

It is the same with wildlife conservation, show an itemized audit of services and expenditures, programs, who paid in and out, how money was used, and where the benefit was generated in expected outcomes?

Merely saying hunters put money into a wildlife conservation is not going to be enough to illustrate a point in an argument for or against hunting in general. It is saying, “Take my word for it. Trust me, I am a hunter.”

We now live in a world of suspicions, act accordingly.

I thought about ownership.

People tend to need the idea of ownership of something in order to value the item to protect it. Otherwise, anyone can arrive and tell them what to do with what they have, in the way of resources. If you don't have ownership, you have no say.

Here this concept is illustrated by tribes of North America. Water quality is one of the main concerns to living a healthy, happy life. this is true for living thing. Something that complicatedly simple, gives the world's population a vested interest. Water runs through land. Anything done in water or on land affects the system. Ownership and respect of something not truly owned, gives them the courage to protect and ensure the quality and uses of resources. That is for everyone. Yet, governments give them grief when they revolt. Why is it hard to understand when a human person wants water quality to be important and something to protect?

Back to Africa.

One could say there should be no ownership, it is for all. When a foreign entity comes in with an agenda, their whole business is outlined by ownership based on legalities in one way or another. Ownership has to be defined so existing people will not get taken advantage of by foreigner looking to intervene on their behalf for resources, revenue, and control.

With indigenous peoples, ignorance of foreign governance, the ideology of colonialism, and having those conditions forced off on primitive peoples have caused dreadful damage that lasts over lifetimes. This damage is to the people, wildlife, and landscapes.

Some condition or weak spot had to exist previous for Safari Club International to go in to a location, then assert a need for some kind of conservation for reasons known or unknown. Conservation through trophy hunting is what Safari Club International wanted. In order for Safari Club International to function, there has to be revenue in some form being collected off these ventures. Where is that money going?

I have never been a member of the Safari Club International. I thought about it for a hot minute, but decided against it.

In my critique of this, Why was there no dialogue stating the African people were valued as stewards of the animals. Through the value of the African people, which would have given them a vested interest outside of foreign persuasion, to tend their wildlife with better care and consideration. Where did the African human's value go?

Why was it not articulated to the International stage that African people are a commodity unto themselves that can stand alone to make revenue towards prosperity? Why do those African governments not propagate that idea and drive their industry based around the importance and value of its people?

What one sees on the internet is considerably different from the actual daily life and treatment of people.

The problem with this statement is the animal was asserted value while the human population got the scraps. They were told to value the animal, but not themselves?

The animal and the human has to compete for value on the African landscape. The animal and the human compete for value on social media. The African is being told, “We value that animal. You should to, but not you.”

Could you imagine that concept comes creeping to your head while you stand in abject poverty and corruption?

This was illustrated when Ebola broke out in certain parts of Africa. There was an angry outcry from Africans. They believed the world didn't care if they died. It could have been some conspiracy to kill off poor Africans living in slums or other places. Treatment or lack of treatment brought about their belief on how the outside world perceives them; valueless, worthy of death, and something to be eradicated.

I can't imagine anyone would want to feel this way.

Somewhere in there, a portion of Africans are not seeing proceeds but realize their lives are not valued as much as an animal sold for trophy hunting, even if it looks like the money is going to an outfitter or local government.

If corrupt government leaders mistreat their constituents in such a way ,to render the population into disparity instead of prosperity, one can understand when wildlife is sold off at the highest dollar, the general public becomes resentful. They soon believe the local wildlife is the instigator in their suffering, instead of the humans. Once thought, this is an erroneous idea. It is a possible scenario.

The point illustrated here is: If a white rhino has a financial hunt value of $350,00, is there one African person, that we can find, who equals or surpasses that amount of money? How many African people would it take to value that one rhinoceros?

This is the root of all that evil.

The intention is to value something above yourself. When outside elements are re-enforcing the idea the animal has more value than the human, while the human is living in squalor, where does this lead?

There will possibly be poaching to kill off the animal in the hopes the competition for support and finances will be divert to the human. The human will see more of a desire to partake of the animals value through poaching to satisfy personal needs. There could be detachment from the animal's value because the evident poor treatment of the human in comparison to the animal.

There was also the argument of poachers and landowners killing off the remaining wildlife, because there was no vested interest for them in wildlife existence on their landscapes.

If vested interest is a motive for action towards conservation, then it is a weak one. The motive is covering up the real reality of why, conservation is being utilized; revenue.

In another reality, American dollars could possibly be funneled into programs locally to help out veterans and poverty stricken people have a better life. There is no trade-off for someone to do that. Trophy hunting was a trade-off for Africa.

There are people, right here in America, that are just as deserving of help as the people in Africa. They may not look like your generic poor person, but do you have to look the part to make someone extend a hand?

Is supporting foreign places more of a fashionable trend? Is it because those extending help see them as less inclined to help themselves or subjugated, whereas people believe Americans all have the life of Riley? Do we not want to face the fact that our National Home is in serious trouble?

Are people doing these charitable acts for the feeling, or being authentically honest in helping another human being?

Priorities need to be reassessed, and make the statement clear. All life matters, and stop making it a superficial skin issue. 

If it is asserted human life has less value than an animal based on recreation, sheltered under the umbrella of Wildlife Conservation, there is going to be a problem.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

The Curious Person

Click Image to Enlarge

Remember this: Curiosity is not a bad thing, but don't put your foot in your mouth. It might choke you. Think first impressions.

Every once in a while, someone will come along and appear curious. When the same person comes along and you've had them blocked from your accounts since 2010, you get curious yourself. What exactly does the curious person want?

 

Keep in mind, I didn't go looking for this interaction. It came to me, which makes it stick out like a sore thumb.

The curious person will either show the person they truly are, or keep up with the charade. Of course, once you have made the executive decision to move forward yourself, and not revisit people from your dark and immediate past, who you have given opportunities to, it is fair to say everything is reset at zero for you.

There are people who will take it upon themselves to act like your mirror. This is unnecessary when you have solved your own problem without their help. They are only irritating a situation that has come to a resolution, which could set you back on this weird regression. This is detrimental to your evolving as a person; same for them, as well.

If nothing is thriving in the way of relationships, then one can conclude it is a dead-end street. Someone has to let go. I decided to do this.

I blocked the person again. I minded my own business. I am not interested in hurting someone because of curiosity. Hopefully, it was just innocent curiosity. I have no desire to say who this person is. The likelihood it was fake is extremely high. I just let it go. I remembered the man and woman's pictures from 2010.

I wondered why they were back bothering me. Seven years had past and I remembered them both. The photos I saw had not changed. I was looking at another lie. This is why I feel the need to protect myself constantly.

There was some things said to me at the onset of the conversation that someone should never do. I was being nice. When you list all the things not-to-do, then the person goes through and checks all those things off, they are probably there to hurt you. I thought it was more of an information gathering scenario. It begins to look like a set-up and a lure page.

This was what I saw. I friended the person. There were some family photos. In the information section, it listed this person had publicly declared a relationship with a woman.

Red Flag #1: Why would you be talking to another woman?

I noticed posts were sourced out. I don't know if the curious person could tell, but I could see the happy photos of the curious person on vacation with the declared love-of-his life at the moment. I wasn't mad about it. This person was a stranger to me.

Red Flag #2: Why would the pictures be readily available from the girlfriend's page?

The curious person gave me their number. I called them. A male answered the telephone. Right off, I could hear this hint of anger or resentment in their voice. I thought to myself, what is this. Within five sentences, the male voice said, “You don't have any money.” This is really the only part of the conversation you need to know. It expresses the point of this blog.

The curious person and the girlfriend indicated Christian beliefs. I wondered if it were not a couple on the internet trying to lure unsuspecting people into situations where they could cry foul or pervert, then ruin people's lives. I suspected this because of the reference of “my friends”. People on my google plus account are strangers. I can't control if they want to post nudity or some pervy photography, esp men.

Red Flag #3: When the curious person approached someone else for pin-up photography for themselves. I guess that person forgot they were on the man's page.

This wasn't the first time a woman has gotten on a man's page then tried to pretend to be a guy to do nefarious things or try to compromise and ruin me. I don't know what these types get out of it. Parents, who have their children on their accounts, can get into trouble when their kids are using their profiles for mischief.

There again, it could be someone using the photographs of some innocent person, while talking to me, thinking I won't investigate this because I am so desperate for love. They think you are love thirsty, which opens you up to all kinds of abuse.

I am not that.

I thought some mysterious person could have sent me videos and destroyed my processor in my old phone. The curious person could have sent me things to click on to hack my phone to watch what I was doing.

I am a little no-body and can't imagine why someone would spend so much time doing all of that extra effort. Of course, this could be another group of men or women, doing mean things to hurt me because they have boring lives.

Red Flag #4: When the curious person wants to talk to you like one keeps pots on the back burner.

Here is some dating advice for anyone talking to a person for the first time.

Do not discuss your money, their money, or dead people's money on the first conversation. This information should be withheld until you decide you are going to get serious about marrying someone or becoming common law. There is no need for anyone to know about your finances, except you. If a stranger wants to know if you are worth the effort because they are well-off themselves, or are money-oriented, then let them move on. You don't need to take a back seat to love because of a piece of special paper and ink with currency value on it. People get jobs every day. You can support yourself.

If money is the main reason couples fight, both of you will never be content. Money will always lay in the bed between you.

If the person makes you feel so uncomfortable that you do not want to call them back because you start questioning motives, then don't. Move on. The person was just curious. Leave it at that.

If you have made it clear (as the curious person's mark) that you do not want people approaching you for initial sexual interactions, do not encourage this conversation on the first call. If the curious person brings up the subject to lure you into sexual conversations, do not engage. It is a trap. This usually indicates that sexy time or conversation is all the curious person wants.

If the curious person has declared themselves publicly to another woman, have the girlfriend do that job. Don't employ a stranger outside your relationship to please you. Go to therapy and figure out why you are straying. If you want someone else, break up with that person, then move on. Otherwise, the curious person is just potentially using you to help them break up with their girlfriend, only to dump you as well, once the curious person gets what they want.

Don't be a patsy.

When you begin thinking about dating another person and getting into relationships, you have to consider it the same as applying for a job. There are things you do not do on initial contact that could ruin your chances.

I went back to monitor the pages. The persons behind the profiles seemed to be somewhat aggressive. I didn't need another abusive person in my life, even if they were hiding their true nature.

If there is retribution from this, then I will know the real motive behind this interaction. This could have been just a socially inept guy, unhappy with his present girlfriend, who wanted options. I am going to believe this was the scenario until forthcoming information is available.

You do not need to find a person to fill a hole in your life. My son was telling me this quote from Two Chains, a rapper of all things, “Instead of trying to find the right one, you should become the right one.”

I'm working on that. I could be Mrs. Darcy. Now, there is a very big misunderstanding wedged right in there.

We'll never know.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

Lightning and the Mysterious North

Remember this: Impromptu is the best laid plan. No one sees it coming.

I was trying to get away from the idea of dating. I believe the E-Harmony commercial is right. The person shows up with the couple for the cake, or hints at a one night stand. I was on the previous with the cake couple after one outing.

I wanted to decompress without the pressure, even though my mother was pushing this person. I rebelled. Who wouldn’t?

I had enough and put my fishing gear in the truck. I cut out of there. I drove down the road and pulled into this drive. I found the person I was looking for sitting at a decrepit, rotting picnic table. The little, old man was nursing a blue can filled with the Gods of Barley. He was slowly caving in on himself. I rolled down the window.

“Hey, you! Want to go fishing?” I started to laugh. I noticed his eyes open wide as he popped up from his seat.

“Yeah, yeah”, Thom blurted in his slightly inebriated, loud voice. He pulled out some keys to lock the door on a RV trailer, now occupying most of his drive. The blue can disappeared somewhere in his mobile house. He shuffled over to the truck and hopped in after opening the door.

I watched Thom struggle with the seatbelt as he tried to latch himself in. I smirked. Somewhere in Thom is an alien running on 100% fermented liquids, instead of blood. I am amazed some days at how functional he is.

We headed down the road toward the river. Thom began to grill me about my evident absence from his daily view of life at the picnic table.

“Where have you been?” Thom looked out the truck window watching the passing landscape.

I began messing with the dial on the radio, looking for a decent song. “I’ve been around. I was finally removed from doctor’s care. Why? Did you think I died?” I laughed at this thought. You never know. People disappear all the time.

I am sure at Thom’s age he is a little hard of hearing. He always talks with emphasis with double words. Thom may have an inner Hispanic in him that is trying to communicate.

“No, no. I thought you went North.”

I eyeballed Thom. “North? What are you talking about?”

He looked around suspiciously. “Lightning moves North.”

I was about to choke with laughter. “Are you saying I am lightning Thom?”

“You never know when you are going to strike.” We both chuckled over that observation.

Thom and I spent the next two hours on the river bank, wandering from knobby hole to the next, getting our bait snatched by baby fish. The baby fish were staying close to the shallow, sandy sections of the river’s rim. One three inch fish snatched my hook and made for a hole in a tree trunk on the bank before letting it go. I saw another palm length fish meander in the shallows through the roots and fallen limbs.

Of course, do not be fooled by the inviting photography of South Carolina rivers. You will dehydrate fast during the summer months. The woods on the bank are the equivalent to a sweat lodge. Imagine moist, steamy heat hitting you from all sides with no barrier. It is constantly surrounding you. You spend up to three to four hours on the bank of the river with no water, and you’ll be having yourself a spiritual experience. If you’ve had a belly full of food, you will vomit it up, eventually. If you drink too much water, after losing to many fluids, and get stressed, you will get the dry heaves.

Thom caught a fish and pulled it to the bank. I began to realize how humid it was at the river. I started feeling my impurities floating out my pores then decided to go find Thom.  I had so much sweat beading down my face, I could barely keep it wiped out my eyes. I found Thom on a log near my yellow backpack.

I asked him, “Did you give up?”

He replied, “Yeah, yeah. The fish aren’t biting.” Thom began to rock back and forth to get off of the log. He has bad hips.

I began to pack up the stuff while Thom carried the bream busters. We weren’t very far from the truck. I know Thom is in his early seventies. I didn’t want him to prune up and die on the river. How would I explain that? I took Thom fishing and it killed him.

Not today.

I went forward to clear the path of snakes. I didn’t want Thom to get snake bit but if so, the snake wouldn’t make it. The snake would lose all venom quality from the alcohol content in Thom’s blood. I jest.

We walked back through the woods to the truck. I ignited the engine and turned on the A/C. I put the gear in the truck with the rods. Thom hopped in to the winds of the A/C. I offered him some fluids. He refused; no alcohol. I downed three Capri Suns. When I go out in the jungles near my home, I deflate like a balloon. Thom sweat till it made him sober.

I had already been sick for a week. I decided I didn’t want to pass out while driving. I just sat in the A/C, collecting myself. We were watching a couple fishing from the bank, out in the middle of the river.

Thom spoke up. “They must be fishing for roots out there.”

I just turned and looked the other way. The trees had yet to move. I laughed.

I stopped the truck near the access to the river that lead to the main road. “Thom, do you have anywhere you have to be?”

Thom began to slowly disappear into the seat. “No, no. I don’t.”

“Let’s ride across the road. I’ll show you where I caught some shellcrackers.”

Thom agreed. “Okay, okay.” He adjusted his little hat.

We drove up to the main road.

“Thom, people are going to think you’ve been kidnapped.”

“No, no.” He wiggled around in his seat laughing.

We drove to the other side, noted how low the river was, then I took him home.  He got out in his drive and walked around the truck. “Maybe next time we will have better luck.”

“I guess Thom. I’ll see you later.”

He walked over to his trailer. A blue can appeared. He sat down and I pulled off to head home.

There were a couple of things I learned on this fishing expedition to failure. I was telling my son about Thom’s view of me when I appear after long absences. He started to tell me different cultures and their perception of lightning and direction.

I decided, just for fun, to dig into this a little. I didn’t want to put any special meaning on this. It was just something to research and do. I was hearing Thom relate his conscious-unconscious, as he tried to address my absence; or my existence in his mental world. Am I a trickster?

Somewhere in Thom’s conscious-unconscious or psyche, I exist in a northern direction when I am absence.  He perceives the place where I subside as a mystery, because he has no clue what I am up to. It is a mystery.

I am taking liberties here because, who knows what goes on in Thom’s mind when he is under the influence. He says the weirdest things to me. I shake my head and take it. What can I do?

When I appear to Thom, I am symbolic of lightening. I assume he thinks I am random, unexpected but when I appear, the air is alive with activity. This weird energy he senses, lifts him off his picnic seat of old age, and thrust him into action to go do something. I pretty much strike Thom, not in the literal sense.

Maybe Thom thinks I am the flash of the Thunderbird’s eye?

Thunderbirds move contrary to everything else. Everything else is under the influence of direction.

Thom and I have a very odd relationship. He expects nothing of me. We function as scouts. The problem with being a scout is you get in predicaments, gather information on what you see, then someone wants you to hand that work over to make someone else’s life easy.

I looked into the direction thing. The Chinese notes North to represent the Rat. I am a Rat. The Celts believed North represented Earth, Home, Security, and fertility. Right again. The Feathered Serpent of the Southern regions is the God of Lightning. Tribes of North America viewed North as wisdom and thought. Depending on which tribe you based this information on. Each one is slightly different. It means other things as well.

I was still curious about this mysterious North Thom believed I returned to. Maybe, Thom thought I was a Viking?

I was now a part of Thom’s internal mythologies. A person’s body is surrounded by a spiritual reside that rubs off and is absorbed by another. You become a part of them, symbolically living in their internal landscape of dreams.

I thought Thom would be waiting at that picnic table, and I would never appear again. My spirit would have moved on to the mysterious North in his psyche. I would be lost from this world, running back to that mysterious place where I came from.

I began thinking of Thom’s age. One day, I would go to pick Thom up for an adventure. I will find an empty picnic table. Thom’s body will give out and his spirit will subside to some directional place I will not be able to go to. It will be a mystery to me. I am sure where ever Thom will be, he will be standing in Demeter’s golden field.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore, Lightning of the North