Diana and the Metamorphoses of Ovid.

Remember this: Once a person has overstepped a boundary they knew existed, or out of ignorance did not know existed, can not escape the wrath or retribution of the offense. An insult is an insult.

The first time I met a Frenchman named Lionel, he introduces me to Ovid's book, The Metamorphoses. Lionel which means 'little lion' was true to form. I believe Lionel was thinking more of the Amores. With that I can only imagine what Ovid did in his lifetime with a chuckle. Lionel believed that every man should read this book. Why? Lionel said that men needed to learn how to treat women. Secretly, I think Lionel wanted to be Don Juan. I keep arguing to myself that maybe men need to read Ovid's Ars Amatoria (The Art of Love) or Remedia Amoris (The Cure for Love).

I pondered whether Ovid wrote something on "Womanly Indifference"? How to Hunt? No such luck.
Ovid was exiled for being risque and a little libertine but that is all in a days work for the free of heart. Sometimes you have to be a libertine. I don't mean Johnny Depp with his nose falling off from syphillis in the movie either.

I pondered the story about Diana and Actaeon. Diana's contribution to the situation seemed a little extreme to me but that is the story.The relevance here is Diana, being the Goddess of the Hunt and Actaeon was a legendary hunter. Undoubtedly, they could not come to terms for lack of discussion.
Here is the story in brief:

Diana is bathing with her nymphs in her sacred pool. Actaeon comes along and sees her naked. This vision insights Actaeon to make Diana his consort because he has 'some kind of stirrings'. Upset that he is being a peeping tom,  Diana turns Actaeon into a stag. Once changed into a stag, Actaeon's hounds chase him down and rip him to pieces. Or so the story goes......

Given translations and renditions, the story could change in motive depending on Diana's virtue lacking impunity and the questionable behavior of Actaeon. Love will drive you mad but lust will kill you dead. There is also the issue of the hunter becoming the hunted on both parts. Diana is hunted as a woman by a man with questionable thoughts in his heart. Actaeon is hunted by his dogs because he is now a stag.  Reading other stories about Diana, one comes to the realization that on more than one occasion, because of the lust of men, she is nearly raped. Diana comes to hate men based on their behavior.

There is also the story of Jupiter seducing Callisto in the form of Diana. Diana's bigger annoyance is the deception of men or their feelings of entitlement by encroaching on her sense of personal space. Men do not treat her as a goddess but  merely an approachable human woman,  which she is not. There is also the reoccurring theme of male domination and her resistance to it. In order for Actaeon to be unable to dominate Diana, she changes him into a stag from which he can't change back. Even though one account states it is only when he speaks that he will turn into the stag. If one considers the male gender asserts authority and dominance though verbal commands and body language, it would be easy to see why Diana took away his choice to speak. 

If we were to think in terms of wrath and why a woman would not want someone to speak of her obvious helplessness in a situation, is to avoid negative attention from overly amorous suitors, deception, and the idea Actaeon now knew what Diana was hiding. Even though Diana is a goddess, she is still in need of a form of protection because Diana shares human emotions. There was no shortage of treachery among the Greek gods. The issue of trust or lack thereof comes creeping into the story because of the immediate cursing of Actaeon's speech. Here one can think in terms of a wild animal that is troublesome, unmanageable, and downright fear drenched.  The animal would kill itself trying to escape but there is that one person who comes along and by some miraculous ability can appear to control the creature, when in fact it merely acquires the creature's trust, even if temporarily.  This is the same concept with training wild horses, hunting dogs, and feral cats. Take the threat and pressure away.

There is also a biblical reference to Adam and Eve in the Garden. Adam being weak minded follows along with Eve, who eats forbidden fruit. Hence, they realize the two of them are naked by the act of some sin or crime being committed intentionally or by ignorance. Here the woman is cursed. In Diana and Actaeon's story, Actaeon is cursed for committing a sin against Diana by seeing her naked. The stories are inverted to some degree. Actaeon by one account is merely walking along in the woods and stumbles upon her. Man in his ignorance meanwhile trouble ensues.

In Diana's short book of what do I do questions she is probably thinking the Holy Trinity of retribution: Do I care, curse, or kill? On the other hand, there is a tale of Acteaon stating he out performed Diana in hunting.  If you take into consideration the plot of Actaeon boasting about outdoing Diana,  you would then have the relationship dynamic of competition in a most foul way. I vote for the nude story myself. Greek tragedy and all.

As Diana  pointed her finger after changing Actaeon, she bequeath him one final thing. She planted fear within his heart. Up to this point, being the legendary hunter, I assume Actaeon did not have anything he feared. He could overcome all problems. Actaeon is outside the realm of human emotional trappings.  Once Diana turns Actaeon into a stag he is no longer protected or recognized. The hunter has now become the hunted.

This story could be an example of a cautionary tale about over stepping boundaries, forcing yourself off on someone who doesn't ask for that behavior, detailed scrutiny and the repercussions that come from such interactions.

In regards to overstepping boundaries, when put in situations where an aggressive type is pressing you to conform to their wishes, take a step back and say, "No."
No means no and you do not have to explain why. It just is.They can accept it or not.


Written by W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~


If you would like to read more please click on the link below:
http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Ovhome.htm

Passages from Robert Ardrey's Book, "Territorial Imperative".

Remember this: Everyone wants to mark their terriotory and fight over it even if its a speck of nothing.

I bought this book from the library because they decided to 'trash' its existance on their shelves because it was 'out of date' I guess? So for $0.25 I bought it. Its been sitting in a bind somewhere in the annals of my dad's house. After wrestling with this other book that is all of 227 pages and going back an forth with it while cooking or sun-bathing (you wait till I write my commentary on that one. lmao. Its not what I read, it was what was between the lines. Let me tell you--DEEP between the lines.) Also this could be a strange way of not forming an attachment. Not that I don't try to experience joy of my own doing but I also don't want to believe in 'the yellow brick road' either. The only people rolling down that delusional cloud bank is a naive girl wearing sparkly red shoes, a coward, a heartless tea kettle and an idiot made of straw. I don't plan on applying for any of those jobs no time soon.
So here is some pieces to it I thought sounded pretty spot on.
"I am entirely willing to grant that anything is possible, but to me the statistics seem against it. And to the second reminder concerning the control we exert over our environment, I must reply, "You are thinking of environment in terms of physical arrangements. You are thinking of drainage ditches and antibiotics and slum clearance and hybrid corn. You are forgetting something---that the most important element in the human environment is man himself. And so long as we live in a time when a few human beings, by pressing an arrangement of buttons, can in a few hours so alter our physical environment as to make life all but insupportable on this planet, then I am unimpressed by the argument that we have gained control of any part of it." (Ardrey 33)
"I do not believe that we are towns without histories, ships without compasses, moments without memories. We carry in that region known as the unconscious certain patterns inherited from ancient days. They are patterns of survival value, or we should not be here. And they are legacy of all that life which has come before us, assuring us that we are not alone.
I believe, furthermore, that what we call the age of anxiety is in truth a transitional time, an uncertain moment in the adolescence of a species, when the superstitions and imagery identifications of childhood are no longer enough but the larger comprehensions of maturity are yet unavailable. In such an awkward emotional age we lose faith in fathers, divine or domestic, and yearn for more suitable stars to steer by. We lose confidence. We feel ourselves children of inconspicuous circumstance, dry leaves tumbling before unimportant winds, victims of worlds of our making, will-less trespassers on dubious pastures. Yet self-knowledge cannot be denied. Maturity must come." (Ardrey 37)
"There will be terror of a sort in losing, once and for all, this comfortable, pupa-like, three-dimensional chamber of human uniqueness, the only world we have ever known. And there will be hazard, most particular hazard, in the chance that we may discover ourselves the pale prisoners of a determinate past, whereas before we were at worst the nervous victims of an indeterminate future. But it is a chance I believe worth taking: in part, because I have reason to suspect that this will not be biology's answer; in part because I believe that the winning of self-knowledge is worth every risk; and in part, because I have no choice, for truth is peering in my window and I cannot ask him to go away." (Ardrey 38)
Don't you just love those prophetic doom soothesayers?

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Sources Cited:

Ardrey, Robert. The Territorial Imperative: : A Personal Inquiry Into the Animals Origins of Property and Nations. New York, NY:Dell Publishing, 1st edition April 1, 1971. pp. 33-38. Print.

The Wei Chi of Hunting Morality

Remember this: Morality is not Absolute.

After reading several books, articles, an online commentary wars, the subject of hunter morality wept and bled through my eyeballs into my brainpan; one conversation to another.

This interested me. How proponents of the non-hunter regime in offense attacked, while defensive hunters fired back. To show, with myself as the example though humorous, these conversations I thought were morally lacking based on the behavior and content. Nor do I want to sit long on the mountain in judgment of those below. Falls from that height are quick, abrupt and deadly.

At any point in my conversation on this topic, I have decided most ideals on both parts are treated as blanket ideals. No matter what the individual believes, it's applied to all regardless of innocence or guilt. Any argumentative conversation over the morals of hunting would fall back on whatever defining description that is held in the minds of the ones doing the fighting. There would not be a compromise or resolution.  It is not reverence of animal life or the cause. It’s who wins. If a non-hunter can trump a hunter, then the belief they are a better survivor than the other would be exploited. If that is the case, the hunter is a poor choice to consider and vice versa.

I do not use the term anti-hunter because this group maintains unused latent hunting skills. They just don’t choose to hunt wildlife. Local food is gathered  via the internet and grocery store. Hunters kill wild game for food , recreation, teaching morals and values to offspring, and ecological maintenance much like other animals. Non-hunters are either vegan or have others butcher the animals in an undisclosed location in another state or country far removed from the true reality, but given different communal behaviors share some of the same endeavors but in different ways.

The word used to characterize people’s feelings was termed simply ambivalence. Ambivalence is repulsion and attraction toward some person, object, or act. The article mentioned that the sport of hunting for recreation was the most offensive to groups that questioned the irreverence for life on the part of the hunter. This I find questionable. Even though it's for recreation, you can still utilize hunting without isolating it down to one definable term. Given how wars are waged, finding what one would consider another’s weak spot is the place to aim first. When this is done, it seeks to undermine or invalidate the act itself.

In these arguments, topics are anchored with little more than one or two points of disdain and basis for concrete support. I find that its not the actual act of hunting that upsets most people, but the way a select few individuals express the emotions and physicality after the hunt ends  through public media, especially in the case of recreation. Some hunters have a perceived cavalier attitude to taking life. The act goes from life necessity to a privilege, and this behavior can be taken as a form of conquer and not giving the sentient being or animal mutual respect in life to death.

If proponents of hunting base all their arguments on the term sport and recreation, the limited field of view should be an embarrassment against their logical mental processing abilities. If non-hunters were to win a legal battle based on a term, then that would indicate how low are society has sunk. Winning verbal battles through manipulation of word play and not exemplary problem-solving interactions is a travesty.

As for the argument for logical supremacy that screams human arrogance; Nature is not logical or even predictable sometimes, but the need to control everything from a human standpoint is a parody of errors, germinating out of human thinking and behavior. Clearly, if one is wanting to be the winner of such a battle then the reasons behind the exchange are not moral or noble.

If someone complains they are disappointed in responses from outside sources on the morals or ethics of hunting, would need to remove the burden of responsibility off of an outside source. Then look to ones own sense of values. If and when you look to someone else for guidance on an internal struggle would be a sad day in human nature, for you do not have that well defined code ingrained into your being. If you falter in your beliefs, they weren’t that strong to start with. Your beliefs are ripe for picking when a stronger more charismatic types comes to brainwash you with thought reform. You lose your sense of self and the world around you. Morals and values, unless strictly defined by a society, are not absolute. They change with the situation. To live so rigidly in the defining parameters would surely choke a man. You can have a moral, value, or way of life but, two different individuals have their set perception of how those morals, values or way of life should be defined.

Using hunting as a form of aggression therapy to temper members of society that are already cramped is one way governments can allow an outlet for living in too rigid a lifestyle. Otherwise, governments would have to devise a murderous way to monitor species population in the most impersonal way. It would be like a slaughter house, except the body would be downed in an area with little regard for reverence, studied, then cast aside. Albeit an extreme scenario, there are other options on the outcome.

How can a non-hunter morally think this is having reverence for life, either if they are producing a situation that brings it about? It would be no more than population control.

The article also mentioned the core of the problem of hunting morals was the conundrum of hunting, having a reverence for nature and life, but killing the animal the hunter stalks. One argument for why this seems to be hard to approach is quite simple. It’s a closed remark that doesn’t take into consideration the other necessary parts of the psyche of a hunter that is rooted in Nature or the act itself. It is stated in a way or what you would comprehend as the hunter being excluded from the ecological system that he or she was born into. With this exclusion one would imagine that the hunter has no right to meddle in the life of a natural born animal of that system.

People already accept they are separated by civilization stress this point subconsciously or openly. Being civilized means casting away what they would call back in the day being a savage, even though civilization puts you in a different artificial landscape that mimics Nature but falls short of glory. The conundrum is not a contradiction based on the fact it is an inborn requirement passed down from your ancestors. To deny that would lower all those things evolutionary wise your ancestors suffered to get their DNA to you or you as a human being accept your genetic histories and move away from it though transcendence.

Given that to condemn one individual for deciding a different path, when two or more are offered, is blatantly irreverent to the other individual life. I find this a lot in human to human contact. There is a mutual discord for individuals against one another when a clash of what is compared to be based in morals or upbringing from infancy. Its easy for one individual to find fault with another and thus condemn them as irrelevant and not worth wasting time on. Throughout history some groups have eradicated cultures or ethnic groups for this difference of credence.

To catch one up to speed you need to understand the lingo in brief. When members of a society can separate right from wrong legally, religiously, or by free thought into respective categories this is called morality. These beliefs or teachings are what society dictates would constitute “a good life.” Any idea against this is amoral. Ethics addresses questions of morality where morality is the glue of moral code. Unawareness of differences toward disbelief in a set of moral principles is considered amorality.

In early civilizations, morals were constructed and defined to avoid disputes and injuries but grew to accommodate the correlation of increasing cultural/traditional melting pots. When considering the crux of hunter/non-hunter stances on the topic of hunting, the ambivalence towards the mode of elimination, gratification, and celebration, is what fuels non-hunter sentiment. This sentiment leads to non-hunters mobilizing against the hunting community to correct or shed light on hunting by pointing out non-hunter ideals, which are different from hunters, as they have a unique set of values in the way of perspective and application.

This could be indicative of amorality on the part of hunter/non-hunter. The difference arises in the way the subject of hunting or taking life is dealt with based on one’s participation. Non-hunters have indicated verbally that hunting, as a set of behaviors, do not encourage the global paradigm shift that is being pushed to a reformed world where there is absolutely no violence. Everything lives in peace and harmony without partaking of other sentient beings as a meal. Predators would be eradicated, reformed, or so closely monitored as to be a shadow of its former self. Predators would have to ask for permission to be a predator; controlled. If non-hunter agendas were followed it would end in global unity on the collective ideals that clearly favor the non-hunter ideology. This is ultimately destructive to some part of the system. There would be no balance.

Biologist contend all social animals have modified their behavior by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve evolutionary fitness.

Non-hunters consider hunters flawed morally, or as a selfish aggressive member of the species. To implement behavior modification onto the hunter, the non-hunter strives to castrate the hunter into the mirror image of the non-hunter for comfort, security, and control. Non-hunters view the act of hunting as excessive individualism. This view could spell that species cohesion can be undermined and directed globally to an aggressive world view with little regard for pain, suffering or death.

When questioning or conversing on the morality of hunting, one must determine where do the guidelines or laws exist to define the right and wrongs. These laws can be found at local, state, and federal levels. Here at last is a option put forth from government to help define the morals or best yet alleviate the burden. With clear laws, statutes, and self regulating criteria hunters are given the option to make the decision to hunt. Its your decision personally as the individual to pick up a weapon of choice and go forth to dispatch a beast of preference for your consumption.

As humanity’s number grows, wildlife is increasing pushed onto smaller plots of land. Given good breeding season or the imbalance of prey/predator ratio, the government offers the privilege of hunting on private or public lands as a way to take your money in exchange for the hunter to do a job at his cost to help the government control numbers or gather biological information. There is also private individuals that are participating in wildlife/land management for the sake of the ecological system they inhabit as a participating predator.

All of these are rooted in idioms of the self-governing blanket term of morality.

Morally speaking, non-hunters apply what is called tribal morality onto the hunter. This tribal morality is projected onto the hunter by what is defined or perceived as normal for non-hunters. This being arbitrary, flexible, and culturally dependent, as the situation demands.

Hunters are not perceived as entitled to hunt in the non-hunter agenda, therefore are not to be treated according to the same rules. In this case non-hunters wish to enhance their own ideal of what it means to survive and thrive.

Non-hunters adopt the principle of universality. The principle of universality indicates; if an action is right or wrong for one party it should be the same for the other party. This is a selfish view. Those who do not scrape by on the minimal moral level of applying themselves to this standard can’t be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response. No matter what the hunter argues, the non-hunter will blatantly reject, even though there is no need for acceptance of the hunter's individual beliefs on the act of hunting itself.

Reciprocity being an idiom of morality is defined as: to extend a turn for something taken. Hunters in lieu of reciprocity take part in the long and short term planning with governmental agencies of wildlife and habitat to ensure a reliable, renewable ecological life cycle and the supply of essential game through natural propagation of species, etc.

As human life has overpopulated the world along with domesticated animals, wildlife competing mutually, by admission of guilt of all people, has been threatened by slowly dwindling down the landscape of acreage and habitat wildlife need for their life/death cycle. Non-hunters seem to not want to manage populations but seek to embrace an imbalance ecosystem not of Mother Nature’s doing. Also to fuel emotional guilt without proper thought given to what must be done, needs to be done, or even if it is distasteful.

On one hand it could be deception through an attack of guilt and shame on hunter reputation as its questionable per their ethics. If their ethics can be skewered for self serving purposes. It would boil down to priorities and how the hierarchy of importance would be established and acted on. This could be said of special interest groups that are on the side of hunting but not necessarily for its aesthetics. Who among men are selfless? Who are appointed judge and jury on life and Nature? Nature is at best a wild animal held in the crushing grip of man’s populations and his un-natural things.

The hunter and non-hunter are no different from any other animal living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. Hunters are predators but are empathetic to their prey, where in a living system the concern for prey’s life isn’t given a thought, except to feed a belly on the part of a predator. Non-hunters empathize more with prey. Hunters are domesticated The perception of insecurity when life is messing with them brings prey emotions to the surface. The only difference is seen in the idea that humanity is suppose to be elevated to a status outside of other mammals based on intelligence, which is a gaudy arrogance. Also domesticated food supplies should be an acceptable moral choice because it's perceived as less violent, when indeed it is not. It's just undisclosed from public viewing, unless you travel there and see it with your two eyes.

The recurrent theme in wildlife is returning the favor of life and even death. I am swinging toward life on this one. There are several animals species that will starve themselves on partial meals to feed a less fortunate member.

Hunters do maintain the capacity to decide on discriminating choices, when hunting with forethought to the inputs and outputs of a ecological system, while maintaining the system itself. This is based on hunter education through different governmental agencies, self education through any material available, school, being out in the field observing and reporting, and problem solving. This is not based just on stalk, point, shoot, and kill.

Morally, hunters have empathy, reciprocity, partial altruism, cooperation and a sense of fairness as indicators of ethics, as it pertains to the scope of hunting. Hunter moral self-identity and responsibility is grounded in the keen sense to revere life by letting the hunter take part in the natural life cycles. It is based where humans are the equal to other predators with the innate right to be as a hunter is. Hunters do not find necessary to deprive wildlife of its natural state, life/death cycles, for free will but attempt to encourage it and not treat it as a domesticated pet.

Moral code on the individual level is assumed to be innate. This being the aesthetics and thus moral choice . Moral codes are coercive and are promptly and clearly indicative of human politics. Moral code is usually learned in infancy as a religious proverb that differs from culture to culture with varying importance on situations to be considered. Moral codes are founded on emotional instinct and intuition that were selected in the past because they aided in survival and reproduction.

Non-hunters do not see hunting as an aid to survival. Alternative food sources are readily available and acceptable to them. Non-hunters shouldn't undermine or bring hunters into a world where humans have elevated themselves to a fantasy of enlightenment. Hunters do not want to eliminate the deep seated traditional urges of primal rights, as human civilization after great strides in all arenas, has crumpled. Hunters individually and personally find the profane in nature for themselves without being spoon fed what someone else projects it should be. They don’t need gurus. Hunters are being without the shackles of responsibility or expectations of a society that makes life the unlivable struggle it has become. Hunters prefer the natural state of human survival and not the artificial landscape that humanity has built for itself and moves around in daily.

When values are addressed, values approach how individuals and groups understand how, why, and to what degree the those participating should value things. An individual‘s values may be dictated or assimilated after birth depending on the family or community. This can change over time as the individual moves from one communal influence to another, trying on different identities until they find themselves. Some never find themselves, because in the osmotic form are shattered pieces of different perspective on habits.

Ethical dilemmas are pointed out by non-hunters because its based on their social construct, which doesn’t necessarily exist, but is all to real to them.

A person that lived could say I have a few more things to do before I die.  I’m satisfied where I stand.
Hunters do not wish to transcend to an illusionary sense of omnipotence, where life cycles are altered for human politics. Hunters merely wish to take their rightful place as part of the silent conversation of the ecological life cycle. Hunters want to be much like a dog. A dog just wants to be a dog he strives for nothing else. If he did, he would be mutually as unhappy as humans are today by having placed to many artificial burdens.

Besides, individuals are on different paths, if life circles back to the same appointed spot, then so be it.
Existing in a majestic or mundane place, the wonder of a much earlier world still plays itself out in a nature state. You realize how small and insignificant you are and your imagination is uncovered as reality slaps you in the back for all the human diatribes that have been spoken to you or taught; the hunter reflects. Concerns of life and death are relegated to the trunk after responsibility and pursing the illusionary American dream.

Hunting shows you, for those that take that path in life, even if momentarily, the mundane and the profane.
On one hand, non-hunters empathize on the perceived violent death of the game animal by the hunter. Then again, that same game animal could suffer death at the mouth of a predator animal in the life/death cycle. This would seem more ideal because it is deemed a part of nature. In this mentality, humanity is separated out like an interloping species that doesn’t necessarily belong or having a relegated influence on the life cycles themselves.

Man casts man out of Nature. Instead of man being a part of nature, he is no more than a tourist of his own life cycle. Man is a detached being  in itself  and is not considered sentient but alien.

Years have past on man’s descent from Nature. As a creature that is known for conquering, controlling, and devastating Nature, man to some extremes has excised himself from early man primal lineage. Latent instincts in a hunter to get back to Nature and her cycles calls.

Non-hunters who want one unified love do not understand the righteous indignation from meddling in Mother Nature’s affairs.

Non hunter imply and cite ethical dilemmas in an attempt to refute the ethical law-based governmental system that subjugates the complete burden of morality’s question on the sport of hunting, as well as the world view that encompasses it.

This can take the form of a collective militant advance on questioning or manipulating law by feeding the super ego via the Hero complex. Most endeavors end in the insult to the hunting community, revision of laws or respective an avoidable deaths of the very animal species they purport to revere and protect. If you have done nothing but eventuate the death of an animal, how is it different? This could be rooted in intention.
This is all revolving around human politics and not morals because individuals can make a choice on what they believe is right or wrong, then act accordingly.

Morally, hunters do sacrifice self-interest in the service of a greater good every time they plant food for wildlife, decided not to shoot that buck and let him grow, breed, monitor wildlife for disease or changes in populations, offer financing and jobs to others, plant trees, raise wild game and turn them loose. Or follow the laws set down for conservation and ecology. The list is much longer than you think. It's getting credit for your endeavors that fall short. Otherwise immorally, they could say no to all of the above and wait till the last piece of dirt is covered by concrete. Hunters go far beyond prudence. They are looking out for the mutual benefit of ecological systems and those sentient beings living within them. Hunters don’t have obligations, they take on obligations to the ecological system and have a conscience about it which validates moral meaning at least to the individual, even if it is misunderstood by a non-hunter.

Policing an individual's behavior, when the hunter is minding all of the legal laws, is left up to the hunter himself and what he can live with. One of the greater questions in life a person can ask is: Can you live with what you have done?

To truly demonstrate humanity at its best would be for both sides to think of the things they have in common and build a compromise from there. The two differing world views can be compatible. Both sides can find points of compromise and attrition to those that are problematic and journey to a livable accord.

Even as the battle rages on in the tribal realms of defining morality for hunters and non-hunters, a new point of struggle lays in territorial morality with questions of public lands, hunters rights, and the political landscapes the conversations exist on.

What is the moral thing to do? Does anyone really know?


Written by: W Harley Bloodworth
                  Angelia Y Larrimore

Note: It was some pau wau on this topic, I tell you.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Does Hunting Need To Be Reformed?

Remember this: Captialism and Hunting are Symbiotic; not the same concept.

Death will never be removed from the making of our food. As the biological system cycles it takes energy to move it, with gains and losses, before renewal. The cycle continues non-stop. To stop is to initiate death but even death is not final for it gives life.

I was reading an essay called Restoring The Older Knowledge by Ted Kerasote from the book, A Hunter’s Heart: Honest: Essays on Blood Sport collected by David Petersen. The question posed as stated, “Is hunting worth reforming?”

So many questions, so little elaboration. I jest.

I looked up the word “worth” as it was the defining word glaring at me angrily from the question. I find that most people, when giving crucial energy for a thoughtful meditation on anything, are ready to give the ax or pardon to use this word as a measurement stick. The Romans just used thumbs up or down. I don’t know if there was a sideways or even a high five but that’s for conjecture.

My constant companion, the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, stated the meaning as ‘the value of something measured by its qualities.’

As I closed my dictionary, I pondered ever so slightly on what one would pluck out of the mind in words on what those qualities were? What were the peculiar and essential characters? The Nature, ironically, of that spoken word? Better yet, what were its negative attributes that pissed people off?

I thought maybe it wasn’t Hunting itself but the metal the person was made of. People are tempered in different ways given time, quality, and one’s humanity even if well hidden.

I was reading an article called Bear Down: A Field & Stream Adventure on Prince of Wales Island by Steven Rinella. I add this because it was the most recent example of exemplary behavior on the part of a friend and hunter to another person as an act of reform; even if it was on past experience or what people would call a bad hunt. After realizing this, Rinella sets out to reform the previous experience in his friend’s mind that could have possibility marred his outlook on certain categories of hunting and dissuade him from branching out toward becoming a well rounded hunting individual.

Facilitating and renewing his friend’s confidence on the Nature of Hunting to me was a noble act even though some people take to being too humble. Credit to hunting, the individual or something else? Whatever that may be, friendship and hunting benefited in a positive light. Couldn’t this be a positive force across the landscape of hunting itself? Can not hunters find their own sense of decorum and act accordingly? If the individual could cast positive qualities to bring out the very best in others, and the endeavor of hunting, could one potentially reform a negative to a positive position for his fellow hunter both publicly and privately? Would this not be such a quality as hunting needs? Where I come from its called, “Doing right by.” I believe it’s a doable possibility. After consideration, I thought of more definitive terms used to describe hunting.

Even the word sport is negative in its description. Here it might be applied to multi-opposing sides engaging in some combat, game, or test to decide who is the better individual. Some would take it as victor versus loser.

When considering the other words that drive the context of hunting we find recreational situated in the adjectives. Recreation-wise, hunting is an endeavor that give an individual a refreshment of strength or spirit after the work done. Recreation is by far a negative term. In the media and social circles, it is flung around with much disdain to prove someone else’s point even given that the word itself is taken out of context for argumentative gains. This doesn’t necessarily mean that one goes out to discriminate or insult the ideals of hunting for selfish reasons.

In reading, I had to argue the point individual hunters do not ignore, question, or deny the character of its members. If it’s a high profile hunter is shaking his tool at the Establishment, of course he should be questioned on his behavior.

Hunters as a group are not omnipotent with the ability to monitor all of its members for transgressions. This is the same with daily life. Humans aren’t monitored 24/7 for wrong doing. It's left to them to decide on a case per case basis how they carry themselves as citizens of a society, in private or public situations. If they get caught that is a different matter but to apply this behavior as a characteristic solely to hunting is a fallacy. It can be applied to different areas of daily life. To state it is a denial sounds cumulative. If you’re looking at the overall landscape this could be considered true. On the individual level it is not. Another point that was brought up was the appropriate behavior towards wildlife.

One should question appropriate behavior towards animals when exercising the right and privilege to hunt. I remember working at a veterinary hospital where we took wildlife in. Most people weren’t aware of appropriate behavior. Well meaning citizens would remove them from their habitat with no forethought of how the animals were going to be fed, how it felt about being ripped up from its surroundings, or even if it thought someone was doing them a good turn. How is this any contradictory to the same behavior? Either way, I have seen perfectly good wild animals die because of this behavior. This is usually a slow gruesome death. They starve, for lack of food, abandoned without learning how to be wild, or domesticated in a refuge.

When laid out in comparison the acts may look different but the outcome will be the same. Something will suffer for it or die.

Again there is life. Should one not look toward the bright star that shines rather than the darkened places? Darkened places eventually see the rays of illumination even if it is briefly.

My personal experiences have over the years brought me to an understanding on that which moves through the body and mind. I like to refer to it as Essence or Soul. There is something significant in the body of an animal when it is alive. It may not have higher mental faculties as defined by man but still something profane lies within the makings of that which we chase. This is realized by awareness, sight, contact, and familiarity.

When you have your hands on something that is alive you know it's there and can enjoy the fact that you know it's aware of your presence; see the recognition it perceives through your contact by touching it without harm. It is a wonderful feeling. Whether the wild knows this is a mute issue. At that point it is all about you and your feelings where human contact with wildlife is evident. There is no loss only gain even if psychological on the part of the human.

In that moment, you don’t have the burden of responsibility. The animal even though it may be untrusting could be imprinted with the idea that there is no threat from the human. How this affects the animal later depends on how long the contact goes on and the quality of the contact. Many a wild animal has been spoilt by this, but equally have benefited.

Overall, it’s the connection you made to the animal while alive that lingers. On a different landscape, when hunting the outcome is different.

As you hunt, you may be several feet away and quite disconnected from the energy moving through the body of a living creature where there is death forth coming. Once you initiate the death note of the animal when you walk over, unless it doesn’t die suddenly, as this brings about suffering, there is no more energy left of it to be considered alive; warm and departed. There is a feeling of loss and grief. Even though this is momentary, it exists and is a milestone in reverence for the life because it meant something to you. The burden of responsibility of its death doesn’t become as empty as the body after the Essences leaves it. It's not just a bag of bones. Where does this stand in the way of hunters behaving badly?

Debasing hunter ethics doesn’t take a village. It only takes several well positioned individuals that make bad decisions in situations that could eventuate in a public outcry against the ritual itself. I reiterate the words bad decisions.

If hunters set the image then does it not need an overhaul?

I would say yes. To address others' reasonable outcries, but also to elevate it above the aggressions of non-hunters. More so, as an individual personal sense of pride in what we do. Self reflecting on the act of hunting itself is what motivates hunters to participate in the ritual of hunting. Hunters do not strive to debase the pursuit of food but transverse our inflection of what it means for hunters to be a part of Humanity.

Amongst non-hunters, hunting has become much like the gun shot during hunting season when bears consider it a dinner bell. People that are against the way in which the animal dies as extremists flock to this full of aggression. There is no intention on engaging in a conversation on something they quite frankly care little about. Not that all non-hunters are equal in that respect so this is another commonality that they have with hunters.

I quote Kerasote as saying, “It is often said that hunters hunt to return to a world of origins, simplicity, and honest interaction with nature. But when you look at hunters, especially bow hunters, in the pages of sporting magazines, in the equipment catalogs, and in the woods, they look like a cross between Darth Vader and a commando. If you go to one of the annual trade shows that display new outdoor equipment, a hundred people a day will try to sell you a new hearing aid, a new camouflage pattern, a new scent, cartilages, or bow that will improve your chances of getting game, and too few hunters question the replacement of skill and intuition by gadgets.” (Petersen 288)

After reading this, I thought to myself, the above statement is being confused with capitalism because capitalism is using hunting as another area in which to stick its fingers and make money.

To live man needs money. That is the ugly albatross around our necks and we put it there. Trade shows are capitalist tools to make money for business. Most of the time when you are attending one of these shows, education comes from governmental agencies or non-profits that want to promote Hunting, not merchandise. Merchandise is only a tool or trapping used in hunting, depending on the hunter’s discretion, at using what ever merchandise or new technology he wishes to purchase.

It's not hunting.

A good salesman is only as valuable as his ability to coerce you into believing that what he has is something you can’t live without. Capitalism confuses the Art of Hunting and works as a symbiotic presence that lives off of its host for as long as it can without totally destroying it. Once again, another area that must be clearly defined.

Hunting consists of levels that the individual has to transcend up through to get to the purity of the Art of Hunting, everything else is a trapping.

I personally believe there are activities in hunting that do not make sense. They are no more than games, like one would see at a high school carnival, to get others into participation. By doing this, it is a dishonest means of getting others involved, if it shapes their first impressions of what hunting is.

Shaping a person’s initial impressions should be the top priority in the Art of Hunting itself. Children must take baby steps but you wouldn’t want them to go out and shoot something before their mind can grasp the concept as an adult would. There are ways of handling things and situations; there are ways not to. This should be clearly defined as well. This is mostly left up to the parent, but depending on the adults upbringing, the same bad or good habit, could be passed along quite innocently because that’s how my family has always done it.

I observed hunting never needed reform but the behavior of hunters is worth reforming for the sake of the art and the individual. This essay was probably done around the year 1996, much has changed as some things have stayed the same.

I believe the Art of Hunting can return to the utilitarian, subsistence, and spiritual place that gave it value to start with in cultures, traditions, and society, if not on a group level but more so on an individual level. For hunting to have value, we must reform it back into the specifics of the esteem it was founded on.

Writer credits: Angelia Y. Larrimore

~Couresy of the AOFH~

Being Taken Seriously Or Not?

Remember this: Maintain your reputation at all times. Don't let anyone drag you down.

Recently, I have been seeing a lot of blogs and posts on the behavior of women, I assume, that hunt. I  thought every once in a while you have people that call out others who are charicatures of the hunting endeavor, male or female.

My mind set was traveling along the lines of differing view points. I asked myself some questions.

Do women want to be taken seriously overall?

I would think the answer to this is yes. Women actually do want to be out in the field with their prospective other, even if they are man handling a gun or not. On the other hand, they might want some me time while the prospective other is out beating the bushes or talking a lot of bat guano with his friends. This is a win-win situation.

People in general like to feel accomplished. Believe it or not. Some women do feel the need to be regarded as the prospective other's rare jewel, instead of shame and regret. Men like to know they have something rare that their buddies don't have or probably never will have. That is one of the underlying tones of trophy hunting. How good a specimen it is and if its rare.

Rarity.

Men will brag on their woman like they would brag on their favorite hunting dog, gun, or truck.
Men are just simple that way.

As for security sake, I asked the question to myself: What if the prospective other was injured, which caused them to be unable to provide? What if there was no prospective other?

Women do not like to worry about the basic necessities of life, such as food and shelter. If the other half of your union, be it legal or not, is down for the count, you certainly want some reassurance  that life can be handled with very little anxiety. If you are by yourself, the last thing you need to be thinking about is how someone is going to circumvent what you have to do to survive.

If a woman ever left a man it was because of anxiety to her thinking.

How does seeing women prostrated on social media in pseudo hunting photos help the cause of women in outdoor sports?

Undoubtedly, it is not helping the role of women to much. It has generated a topic of interest. These pseudo images do generate a lot of merchandise sales for the product, but not necessarily the model.
As for posted photos, it's either going to make you want to be like that, exercise like crazy, or go on an eating binge with ho-hos. There is no way in this lifetime you'll ever look like that without a plan and commitment.

If you put a photo up of a nice looking, mostly naked woman in hunting gear she will be all the craze by men's post. Another woman will view the reaction, then mimic it hoping to get the same result. She will get the same result but not the one she was hoping for. In her mind, she was hoping to find the one. In real time, she's just being objectified like the model in the photo. Unfortunately for her, the only one getting paid is the model.

Posting seductive photos of oneself is zero in your bank account.  You also open yourself up for ridicule, losing someone you could have had a chance with, or total ruination; at least in your mind. On social media, smearing someone can go all the way to the end of Google Planet. That is as far as it gets.

Hunting aside, there are people out there with low moral character. You've made yourself a target for people of low moral character who will stalk you while making you slowly pull your photos out of sight. There is such a thing as negative attention.

Would a woman that hunts want something better for herself? Does the belief the questionable, sleazy redneck is the way to go?

Then again, you can find a person of low moral character wearing a business suit. Trust me when I say, they are on the internet right now googling.There are some people that do take pictures of themselves, but before social media hit, that was something private for yourself.

Is it necessary to show the whole world what your mama gave you?

Sadly, men might comment up and down on a post of  naughty girl pictures. When it comes to their mate they don't feel like sharing, especially with the whole world and their buddies.

As a guy, do I really want ten of my buddies getting a good look at my gal's back or front porches? What if said buddies got the idea to come over while you weren't there?

Male animals fight over females all the time, good breeders or not.

Does a woman want her picture posted up beside a trophy kill? Isn't she the same thing? One more conquest to claim or reminiscence over? Valueless and the topic of some gaggle of men's degrading comments? The butt of someone's jokes that makes others perceive her as less of a human?

Anytime you place a visual out in the public you are inadvertently, unintentionally advertising. Let us get one thing straight though, people do know what they are doing and what will come of it. In this case, do not feel so bad for them when overtly sexual comments ensue. The road travels both ways on this subject. .

The creepy little mind is what connects the dots on what the viewer thinks you're saying even if your message is different from the one they receive. With that being said, I do exclude the more formal sports where tweed is worn (only because tweed is awesome). You don't have to dress in camo all the time given the game you are chasing. We are looking at allowances here because they exist.

If there is a group of people that contend women were not a part of hunting and shooting before, this is a valid statement. (For those that say, this is not true, go visit a museum, that illustrates the idea; a museum where out-of-date reliquaries are left out of mainstream; it is history, not current). Instead of being a by-standers, they are actual participants. There is also within that group, like minded people that feel to maintain a momentum of self-decorum or even self respect, it would be prudent to exercise some kind of restraint when being a role model (even if you don't think you are one or chose to be one) for other women. I can understand arguments ensuing on this subject. People tend to want to do whatever they please, even if it brings them grief at their own hands.

Overall there is an undertone of hunting being under attack, so how one would present themselves to avoid a bad reputation to the outdoor sports, or to oneself, is something you need to take into account. Never make what you are endeavoring to do look bad. If you make it look bad it will reflect poorly on you. I say that, but the Herblock that I am, must ask the tough questions.

You are your own salesman.

I would think it would be the same thing for women. If before in the past other women were not mixed up in the hunting soup, but now you had your chance, why would you do things to make it seem uncomely or a turn off?

Women in hunting want to make strides without setbacks. Once you can overcome the supposed difference in men and women, there can be a camaraderie between the two sexes when out in the field. If that leads into something else that is a little bit stronger than a passing physical infatuation, then so be it. You will not suffer for it. If you take up hunting merely to find a husband or a boyfriend, eventually he will see right through you. You'll be back at the house, as a non-participant or by-stander.

There is also the scenarios where you will be thinking you've found "a live one" only to be disappointed. The person is trolling for someone they can enjoy for the moment or a fantasy.

The bigger question is overall as a group, do women want to be respected for our skill and our respectable position in society? Do we use hunting only as a platform to get a date or a husband?
No one that I know of likes to do something for the sake of nothing. At the same time, one person would be insulted that the strides they make in the global outlook on hunting is degraded by the acts of a handful of misguided souls.

There is a big difference in sharing yourself with one or two people versus sharing yourself with the world.  Even with one or two people, they only glimpse a small fragment of you and not the deeper self of who you are. Non-disclosure can work wonders for your self-esteem.

As a female who hunts, I don't think about this as I get ready to go spend my time in the woods or on stand. I just enjoy myself and let that be a controversy for late night blogging after the hunting is done.

Again do you want to be a person who posts as an activist with words of rage while squirming in your computer chair hoping to get someone to notice your tirade? Do you desire to get in an online altercation or are you just going to do what you do without all that tantrum crap?

Really it boils down to a personal choice. What do you chose to do? Sexual innuendo photo on social media or not?

Do you want to be taken seriously or not? If so, act like it.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~