The Mundane White Deer

Remember this: Try as adults might, some things are just ridiculous.

The new celebrity on the Hunting block is an eleven-year-old boy who shot a white deer. From the articles posted to the internet, all of the hunting shows and magazines are calling either to congratulate or to recruit for the story of the week. That must put a dent in grown men’s agendas, who are striving to get into the hunting business and have been up-started by a child.

The little boy legally killed the deer in his home state of Michigan. I say that is Michigan’s problem. This clears him of any wrong-doing, legally.

From the articles, the parent and boy admit there were several hunting participants out to kill this animal. It is fairly skinny so there couldn't have been much meat except for burger and sausage.

The prudent question to ask here is: why advertise this when it will be gifted with negative connotations and adult attacks on a child? By now the boy realizes he has adults grouping around him like the buffalo so I doubt he feels unsafe.

It isn’t about losing your right to hunt. It’s not about a child’s right to hunt. It’s not really much about nothing. It is just about the spectacular, spectacular which I have come to abhor.

I have seen this many times on the internet; persecution and laments. I guess someone wants to prove their point of being singled out, misrepresented, and disavowed. Also, the idea that someone needs other people to rush to their aid to validate their entitled or legal right to do something seems a bit so yesterday with this hunting fodder.

There are posted by others stating the albino or white deer is an anomaly and should be smited off the breeding landscape of deerdom.

There is also the abuse subjugated on the child by the public via the parent wanting their child to be famous. I couldn’t do that to my son, as I have said before. I want to protect him not toss him out in the fray, empty-handed or for money’s sake.

I also know there are people that do not like you. They will one plus or like such things to get a rise out of you because deep down you crawl under their skins. You’re welcome.

My problem with this tired storyline came in the form of the SCDNR posting an article about this little boy to their website. It was ambiguous as to whether the SCDNR supported it or not. I am sure there will be a sound biological reason for the post.

This drama was playing out in Michigan, not South Carolina. People have shot albino and pied deer here. It’s not made into a three ring circus, which is what hunting has become. Setting the tone for showing your ignorance, attacking your fellow man, prostrating children out to start or win arguments on debates, and just low down dirty morals and ethics.

I began reading the posts on the SCDNR Facebook page. One candid misogynist fellow commented, with colorful profanity, that women perusing the SCDNR Facebook page needed to stay at the shopping mall and keep posts to ourselves, as we didn’t hunt.  Of course, the SCDNR took the comments down which I was thankful for. I guess the attitude against women hunting in South Carolina is alive and well in some people.

It also illustrates how the article can polarize South Carolina constituents using the SCDNR Facebook page to be for or against this little kid shooting a deer. I wondered whether the poster at the SCDNR understood or realized they were providing an outlet to make the constituents using the services of the SCDNR look like ignorant southerners or fiends out to attack a child. Why would someone do that? Is it that important to cause a controversy?

I don’t live in the land of fairy tales and people do act the same all over the world to different degrees, but why invite the devil into your hunting lodge?

Granted the SCDNR hopefully does understand as a state agency they should not dabble in picking and choosing individuals that go along with personal beliefs or agendas. Those posts should be for their private pages. This service the SCDNR provides is for everyone, not people just on one bandwagon. It was not education because this fodder can be found elsewhere and commented on outside of the SCDNR.

People didn’t seem to be pleased with the SCDNR person posting this article. It’s too disruptive and that is the reason for it; disruption.

When I considered the fall-out from the white deer I thought people were concerned this little boy would think that there is nothing he can’t tromp upon because he is entitled by law. What happens one day when he gets older and this ideal has stuck with him? This ideal that has been re-enforced by adults and he goes outside of the law because he feels entitled? What then when he cries foul to being persecuted or misrepresented?

I asked myself, what is the real message being sent to children?

I can understand the people of that area being upset. There was probably some faux ownership of this animal that spiraled down into perceiving it as a pet. There was also the hope that maybe one day they too would see it. Now that day is gone unless another one appears. The next white deer can be shot down because it is genetically undesirable, legal to hunt, or just to spite everyone for killing it because you can.

There are hunting participants that do consider the sentiment of non-hunters. They see these animals as something to keep around because it gives people hope even if the animal is a mundane.

The dark side of this is hunting participants that will go out of their way to kill any white deer just to hold it up to non-hunters’ faces, grin and say,  “You can do nothing about this.” Then walk off with a happy spite because they won. Won what I say? They have subjected another person to loss and molestation while making themselves look less than human. Maybe that is what human is; spiteful and vindictive.

Given the child has some square right to flaunt his quarry for bragging rights amongst the internet hunters, which was secured by his family. It is not like he did an epic thing. He just shot another deer of a different color. Not that I am down-playing his accomplishment, if that is what you call it, but this is true. He is not a character in Homer’s Iliad that quested for something and destroyed terrifying beasts along the way. The white deer probably walked by or was on a corn pile. It didn’t jump up into the stand or run from the trees with fangs bared.

I shake my head and laugh at this kind of thing.

Not too far from where I live dwells twin, albino girls. Their mother is of African descent. I would watch their mother braid their powder white hair down at the park. Sometimes they would ride bikes in the evening. I wonder sometimes if people could have decided to take their life at birth because they were considered genetic anomalies or weak genes. I then reflect on the treatment of albinos in Africa. They have their body parts stolen by force to go in potions or witch doctor remedies. One lives a normal life, the other in fear, and the white deer doesn’t know it is in dire circumstance because of its color. It gets killed anyway because it’s legal or someone wants its head and hide. I could beg the question to let it just live. There will always be another person with that desire to shoot it.

I’m waiting for the photo and story of a baby in diapers jumping into the fray of a wild hog herd, kill them all with one stroke, changes its diaper, writes its own article and shows up on the Joe Rogan show or the Sportsman’s Channel. All while planning to save everyone from hunger with just one fish.
Lessons learned:
Everything has a price on its head.

Everything can be ripped from this Earth for whatever reasoning.

Nothing is sacred.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

The Label Makers of Skill.

Remember this: Do not stick your finger in the fire. It hurts.

When you are born you are a blank slate for someone else to write all over. You learn your parents chosen religion perhaps. You look at Vogue to figure out what clothes to wear. Your father may even be the one to teach you how to put makeup on.  Watch an adult on how to act for good or bad. Stick your finger in a fire on the gas stove until you realize this hurts. No one ever remembers the moment when the idea they were not who they were at that moment began. We just know that someone told us when we reached a certain age, we were suppose to become something. What this something is remained to be seen.

We get introduced to the idea of destiny and fate. We also get introduced to the idea of whether the glass is half full or half empty. There might not be a reason for any of this, but the concept that existance and reality, even if a mere illusion of the mind is mind-blowing.

You might have to pick a wife or a husband. Decide how many children you want. What career you want to pursue. After you exist in these identities for several years that may be how you define yourself.

At some point in a life, the identity we wear could come in the form of an employer preaching to us that we 'must wear many hats'. All of these hats were written about in books that are intended to groom the employee into a certain mold of agreeable manageability. This is for packaging where public consumption is concerned.

You go to a job, learn the skills but eventually everyone you meet who knows about you refers to you as 'the person that works as the hamburger tosser', or the 'writer for South by Southwest' but never who you actually are. People are not concerned about the center of your being in jobs. Consumers and employers just want you to do the work, be loyal solely to their business while you watch their glory grow in conjunction with being paid poorly for manual labor. Eventually to be discarded no matter how good a job you've done because the employer wants to get with the times or go with the newest self help book for business.

The same thing about identity can be said if you are always refered to as Tom's wife, Todd's sister, or that white lady that walks up and down the road. Your identity in regards to how other see you is not about who you are, but what you may do, who or what they equate with you, or whatever gossip is being spread down at the local churches.

People do not extend themselves past these outward identities that are subjective. Without realizing, you eventually start doing the same thing to yourself. You are the worker. Work gets you through. Work takes away all the negative things in your life by putting you in a place where you don't have to deal with the bad. Work hides you. You hide in work. If you were to lose work and money....where does life go for you?

Anxiety, the unknown, and the worst possible scenario given your mentality at the time.

When you finally hit the bottom of the trash can you realize there is bacteria living there. You are really not as low as it gets. There is always the ground outside the can itself. It's never really as bad as it could be.

People you come across will try to label you in the way of the Artista, the Shy Person, the Asshole, the Weird Old Lady Pushing the Grocery Cart, or 'that annoying person' because it makes them feel more at easy with putting you in a slot, then moving on. Nothing special there. You are weighed with some value that only they internalize but could be untrue when actually applied to you.

When it comes to your thinking, you either think positive or negative about yourself, then act accordingly. If you lose everything and fall down in a ditch thinking your life has ended then you didn't have your identity prioritized in a healthy way. You change jobs. Your job is not you even though employers would like your job identity to consume you so you will give them better work...which is far from the truth.

If you were to lose everything today....you would still be you. Nothing would change other than your financial situation which is not your identity. If your husband or wife left you, you would still be you. You are not their appendage. You did not merge by osmosis into their person or become a part of their psyche.

I was watching Life of Pi by Yann Martel this evening. There was a moment when the older main character Pi Patel says, "Even when God seemed to have abandoned me, he was watching. Even when he seemed indifferent to my suffering he was watching. And when I was beyond all hope of saving, he gave me rest. Then he gave me a sign to continue my journey."

The Profane can be found everywhere if you are open to receiving the lesson. You can read a 5000 word book, view a surrealist painting, or watch light hit the dew collected on the side of the road like a thousand diamonds. If you are open to what you see, read, hear, feel, or even taste that is what makes all the difference in the quality of your Soul.

Meaningful things are quite unextraordinary if looked upon with indifference. The universe is watching at all times, if you are good or bad, it doesn't matter. The Universe will construct itself around your Soul; tailor made to drive you to that state of being where you find actualization for all things in your existance. The more you fight the Universe the more it struggles to right itself and your life.

As for your identity.....you never actually lose it. You can't see it for all the other garbage you covered it up with. Take a spiritual bath....it does wonders.

Define yourself by your skill not your label.

~Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

ps...this has nothing to do with hunting. *hiccup*



Work Cited:
Life of Pi. Dir. Ang Lee. Writer. Yann Martel. DVD Fox 2000 Pictures, 21 Nov 2012

Coyote Confessions: Cologne Bandit Part 2

Remember this: Wait for it and milk it.

I decided I would visit the first person on my Cologne Bandit list. I didn't have to go far. I pulled up in the yard. When the guy came out, I pointed to the steps, told him to take a seat, and that I had business with him.  The wife was on her way out the door to work.

He sat down. I asked him, "Do you rent or own the land behind my deer stand?" He told me, he owned it.

I said, "Yesterday, I heard an ATV down there." He seemed annoyed and said, "I was down there and heard a lawnmower."

Of course, I was on the golf cart initially and he didn't know I was there. I timed him an hour or so before the sound of the lawnmower. He kinda told on himself.

I could now place him in the area, yet I had not relayed the cologne smell. I looked him in the eye, with as much mischief as I could muster and said, "Wow, we were cutting the grass down at the pond. I drove into some cologne. It went right in my mouth. Did you smell anything like that?"

My inner demon was belly-rolling with laughter. Of course, this doesn't explain the Cigarette Smoking Man.

He lowered his eyes and stared at me under his ridges. I told him I thought someone was back in the woods. To be fair to his daughter, who sunbathes in the yard, I wanted to let him know, he might have a pervert spying on his house. He didn't seemed bothered by this and then tried to shift the blame off onto the surrounding neighbors. I relayed further information. The pressure was on.

I relayed one of his relatives said to me, "You have a secret admirer in the woods."

I did say to him, I couldn't tell him what to do on his property. He couldn't tell me what to do on the one I was haunting. I wanted to help him pass on my concerns to his little group on that corner road, who lives with the idea I am unaware of their doings.

I also gave him a way out by diverting the questions off to something else. I told him I didn't feel like I should have to worry that someone is menacing me in my area. I did say that it could be someone else just to be fair but he was in the area at the time. He did tell me there were other people that rented property that abutted his. I told him these things only happened during deer season.

I felt I should warn whoever it was in advance that walking in the treeline on property they are trespassing on could get them seriously hurt or worse.  It is bad enough I could be walking on my father's property and someone shoot over in his area; wounding or killing me.

I was just taking precautions. There are times in life when you have to let people know you are not the idiot child of the stick people tribe.

He finally dodged me and walked to the door proclaiming, "Let's go get some supper."

I backed out the yard and drove away; with a plan. The only thing playing in my mind was Mikey and Mouth, from Goonies, yelling at Data, "Slick shoes? Are you crazy?"


Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Three Coffins Deep

Remember this: Animals are elevated on the wall. Humans can be buried up to three coffins deep.

 

My thoughts have been on the different ways hunters perceive trophy animals and their treatment. Trophy animals are elevated to a status of enshrinement in a hunter’s home. What could this mean?

A hunter will stalk the landscape to find a young or old specimen and kill it. I say kill, because it is what it is.  You are not saving its life. You are taking it. This landscape is a location with legal parameters that dictates how the animal will be disposed after hunted.

American states don’t allow transport of animal parts from other states due to disease. Countries don’t allow transport of meat, but will allow pelts or other taxidermied parts to be transported to the hunter. This varies from place to place, depending on legalities.

Let us consider the treatment of trophy animals.

There are views that trophy animals are patriarchal or matriarchal animals that live to old age.  The quarry has reached a pre-death stage where a hunter quests to enact euthanasia.  The argument here is: it saves the animal from dying a natural death to its end, no matter how unattractive.  The hunter processes the animal in some pre-determined way. After finalizing the hunt, the animal is taxidermied then showcased in a home, museum, etc.

I thought about a quote I read on a public social media wall. I am not knocking the person it made birth from.  I challenged the content as true or false. I could have copy and pasted the quote, but it seemed irrelevant. Why? I wasn’t arguing the definition of a trophy hunter or the goals they pursue. To sum up the quote: trophy hunter perfectionist acts as euthanasia man to prevent animal from dying under a bush; places on wall.

Is this what a perfectionist would strive to do in reality? How is this considered perfection when it is a severely flawed delusion of the true reality? I also asked the question was the intention of seeking perfection in this trophy acquisition really ending a perfectly lived life to old age in a less than natural way? By natural, I mean without human mechanical means.

I felt if a true perfectionist considered this scenario, it would be beneath them. It would never be perfect enough. Perfectionists tend to start, stop, and repeat without carrying through a percentage of the time because all conditions are not perfect.

I do reread my own writing and question the content because it is easy to fall into the trap of readable appearances. What read as a common sense quote or statement could turn into a questionable contradiction.   

Here is where my thoughts began. It is the way in which we treat perceived special animals and human counterparts. There are several types to consider; humans, trophy, non-trophy, nuisance, laboratory, and domesticated animals or pets.

The trophy represents some experience in the hunter’s life that must be remembered. The animal is held in esteem by prolonging its existence in the form of a taxidermied shell.  What is left after processing is showcased in the home, office, museum, etc.

How loved the processed trophy is treated depends on the hunter’s attachment to the memory. Some hunters love their trophies others move on to the next. Taxidermied trophies tend to be eventually overlooked throughout the day as unconscious home décor. It is always there and passed by so many times in a day. If there is no one to tell the tale to, it gets overlooked often. Dust bunnies start to build up, moisture breeds mold, the fleshy shell begins to crack in weak places, and the animal face no longer holds its fresh appearance. What once was a majestic beast in need of enshrinement now becomes an unsightly eyesore. I will not even go into the aftermath of divorces. There is no telling where the trophy will end up.

What about the other types? Attachment sways the dictation of treatment. How attached is the person to the animal or person? Does this attachment generate from competition and value over the animal? Is it coveted that much as a trophy animal?

I wanted to touch briefly on each type as they were valued and disposed.

For domesticated animals, the intended could be tossed in a dumpster, a place in the woods, or left to lay and decompose. Special pets could be buried in a grave, cremated, or be taxidermied. These beloved pets are elevated above animals people have no attachment to. If it is a cow beyond veterinary help, then a trip to the slaughter house may be prescribed if the meat hasn’t been tainted by medicines and chemicals.

For wild, non-trophy animals, the fate of being gut shot and left to wonder off and die could happen. This could happen with farmers and their crops, nuisance animals where the shooter doesn’t want to deal with the body or cruelty cases where no emotional attachment is exhibited. Hit-by-car wildlife could lie there several days before the road crew cleans the body up. Wildlife can be viewed without interference while onlookers watch animals kill, eat each other, and video tape events.

Laboratory animals are left in containment over a period of time, yet receiving adequate care without emotional attachment. Treatment depends on the experiment they are entered into.

When you consider people, you never see taxidermied humans. I think there are laws against this. There are bodies that have been plasticized for art and donated for scientific study. There are also those deceased peoples, who have supposedly put their bodies in deep-freeze to be re-animated to cure their diseases or live again. For people considered important by society, they are elevated in pop or historical culture.

With human beings, we tend to entomb in a mausoleum, be cremated, or buried up to three coffins deep. Given these three options, the body is initially on display before burial, if possible. Once the funeral is over and the coffin is buried, the only thing left are pictures and a headstone.  Where a beloved trophy is hanging on the wall, Grandma Moses is out of sight, ten miles away and well under the ground. Most people do not even go to the cemetery, once the body is buried to refresh the flowers. To be fair, this is not true of all people. There are families that tend their dead vigilantly, depending on the culture and country. They elevate their ancestors above the animals they hunt. Others see the animals as their ancestors in another form. Other cultures see dead human bodies as empty shells that can be possessed by the damned.

With hunting quarry, there are views that the animal shouldn’t be left to die an unsightly death at the pickings of vultures. Yet for humans and unloved animals ,we bury them well out of sight or discard them with little care to the treatment of the remains. Animal and human alike are shoved in a trashbag without prejudice. 

When you look at the relationship between the trophy hunter and the trophy, the pivot seems to be the level of attachment the hunter projects onto the animal, circumstances and memory. Culture could play a part where applied. There exists in equal parts the action of the hunter to the hunted.  After learning about cultures and their treatment of the dead and animals, it is not difficult to believe the why or because of trophy hunting. It is still incredible to me, the way in which humanity categorizes creatures of value versus creatures perceived to be less or no value.

 

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

The Boyfriend.

Remember this: Your comedy is sublime.

Phil Robertson made the saying, "if your boyfriend doesn’t know how to hunt or fish, then you have a girlfriend" popular. This has also become a popular meme on the internet posted by male and female hunters. It seems to be intended for comedy. I take it as comedy and do not get offended at the lack of political correctness.

Depending on how each individual male is raised determines the way in which he turns out or what activities he chooses, unless he goes lone wolf. Some men like to beat each other up with ribbings and insults to encourage their brethren to be as manly as each individual in the group.  This also could have been a form of encouragement to other males.  That would bid the question: is it better to build a façade of manliness or actually be a man?

I wanted to dissect this phrase because of the sublime message hidden in the meaning, if you took it literally.  Sublime messages intrude from every place. Bringing awareness to issues of gender treatment in the outdoor sports should be a consideration as the horizons broaden.

Just as someone could get offended at this phrase, the people that float it around the internet might get upset that I am writing about it because they feel their right to pass such a thing along has been attacked or suppressed. That is not my intent but I am not apologizing for writing about it either. I figured if people could pass this post around, then no one should have a problem when I dissect it. Someone’s sensibilities are being insulted, either way.

The initial point is: the derogatory nature of what being a non-hunting male was defined by in the phrase. If you didn’t hunt or fish then you were a girlfriend. There are a lot of people that know how to hunt and fish but are horrible people, inside and out. I would think that what define a man are virtuous traits like character, honor, humility, the ability to lead or follow for a sensible cause, and acting like a decent human being. Hunting and fishing are activities not characteristics.

The second point is: the derogatory nature of what being a girlfriend is as defined by the phrase. For the male to be considered lacking, it was referred back to the feminine and the inability to do an outdoor activity. Somehow being feminine is a negative aspect of the person. There is something wrong with being female or at least it is sublimely implied.  

Big companies and small business women educate the general public this ideology is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with being a female. There is nothing wrong with being a male. There is something wrong with callous bad behavior when it is broadcast in an intentionally derogatory way. Contrasting this, is the idea female hunters posting this phrase were once girlfriends, singletons, and married women, who do or do not hunt yet were poking fun at a non-hunting male that was lowered to the standard of the perception of what it is to be a female, a girlfriend, or a married mother. You were demoted to a lesser class of citizen because of the lack of participation in an activity. The female hunter equated the male that couldn’t hunt or fish as undesirable. The female hunter didn’t recognize this fallacy while hitting the post to profile option.  Now that is comedic; the blind leading the blind. The humor grows as this phrase is posted over a young girl with a bow who could be someone’s girlfriend, singleton, or wife. Once again, it is the idea that a particular individual is completely separated from the image, its meaning, or the responsibility of promotion. Girlfriend is treated as a sexless word but still degrading even when clearly feminine.

There are people that take part in the mistreatment of other people and promoting messages while separating themselves from the message defining, or being applied to them when in fact it does. Somehow there exists for them immunity.

In retrospection, I thought of myself. I was a female who hunted, fished, and did other things. These were activities, not things that denoted who I was as an individual. If this was the case, maybe I should ask the next man I date whether he wants a boyfriend or a girlfriend. What a pickup line! If he wants a girlfriend, then I shouldn’t bother with him because he clearly wants a boyfriend. I am floating in a sexless void with no identity based on my reproductive organs. I am a boyfriend with female parts. This seems to be more acceptable.

 

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~  

Cyber-bullying; A Hunting Task Force.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Man Will Be Nature's Equal

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

~Anonymous Sage~

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Rethinking Memes and Your Reasons.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Enemy, Mine?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering contraries to these positives:

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

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

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

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

Let us focus on the element of the enemy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~