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~

Hunting's Social Media: Charismatic Leaders

Remember this: Call Bullshit when necessary. Your sanity is at stake.

The sky was overcast somewhat with an impending assortment of rainstorms. I was walking along working a previous social problem through my head when I stopped at the epic moment of what should have been realization and looked up to see a vertical rainbow, like a stairwell from heaven; epiphany.

Days before, I had seen an old friend from high school in the same place. I remembered the last time I saw her sitting drunk under a tree after she met people previous to the time she had planned to meet me. I showed up and another person in the group said I should take her home. I looked down at her and said, “Come away from these people. They do not love you.” She argued in her drunken stupor. I decided it wasn’t my responsibility to be her keeper anymore. I bailed her out before from harm’s way. She seemed to like that place. As I saw her walking away from me after a short conversation, I decided  I didn’t desire another relationship with her, even this late in life. Sometimes, you have to let people go and fall in a pit to the bad things that can happen to them if they become seduced by negative habits, people and decisions.

I  thought of the phrase from Lost Girl when Kenzi tells Beau, in regard to another situation, “I wish I knew how to quit you”, and how it applied to a certain page that I use to enjoy, but no more. I reviewed the feelings that the content of the page made me experience; solely negative now. I wondered why I was experiencing these emotions to a virtual world. I was not the only one experiencing this from viewing the page. I looked at the administrators of this page based around the act of hunting. I wanted to see if I could make a comparison to charismatic figures. We know charismatic figures such as Jim Jones, Adolph Hitler, and Charles Manson. These are extremes of charismatic leaders but the potential lives in us all.

When navigating the world of hunting online, we must be careful not to fall under the persuasion of a charismatic personality. This type of individual will insight panic, fears, and dilutes your judgment through distraction because you will hand over your logical ability to make decisions and let them tell you what is what. This distraction is performed through sublime messages and limited conversation through propaganda that supports a certain theme. This theme is usually a compelling story of some kind that if fraught with a very bad ending or impending doom to the halls of hunting. This charismatic individual will be talking and getting you to carry out the vision of their theme. This sublime message will come in the guise of implied care on the part of the leader to the minions.

Charismatic leaders can use force, reason, or charm. Force and reason are rational evaluations. Charm is more subtle but it can only be aimed at someone who is open to it as charm is an emotional manipulation. If charm runs out then reason followed by force ensue. Online manipulation is subtle.

If you were looking to identify this type of person, they are usually preoccupied with approval ratings but are distracted from the actual goal. They may even be unhappy with the fact they are catering to an idea themselves contrary to their personality and will construct a separate social media to placate this deviation. This deviated page will indicate a destructive nature that is contrary to the theme or image they are trying to maintain.  This preoccupation is also addictive for the follower and the charismatic leader. It’s a toxic relationship that really has no substance to it. It’s a mirage or delusion. This becomes a dependency because each participant experiences a social media high. Even if you see followers of such a leader that eventually become disillusioned the leader is blissfully unaware his/her minions are no longer glamoured by him/her. This charm of the leader can hide an anti-social behavior where ego-centricities, deceit, manipulation, and selfishness are prevalent.

Collectively, in a hive-like mentality there is group narcissism where minions are charmed by a shared core value that is skewed from the original individual belief.  What the charismatic leader does is take a group of people and transform them through subtle reprogramming to become a more radical version of self by getting the minion to fully commit to the cause against another without question; just blind worship, adoration, and follow-through. Here you can think of a snake oil salesman when you ask yourself, “What exactly is that person selling?”

This snake oil salesman will use socially accepted means to propagate love and flattery to the tribe. Unfortunately as charismatic leaders are generated the concept or existence of them distracts and eventually self-destructs. Jim Jones killed his followers through forced poisonings and murder. Charles Manson went nuts and killed a starlet via his small harem, and Hilter was smited in his last hours; so no good came to them. For all their pomp and circumstance with grandiose flair and mind wheeling control they ended up dead and marked as social rapists of the mind with murderous tendencies by reinterpreting people’s beliefs to drive followers to fulfill their independent visions.

When connecting to social sites take a moment to pause and review the page:

What exactly is being sold here in the form of ideas or beliefs?

Read the comments and make an assessment of the replies of the administrator.

What is the quality of the people that are closest to the persons involved?

Do the members share a common mentality that might be derogatory?

Is there some underlining behavior that is derogatory to  types of individual that might over time distort your own behavior to people that you normally would not be inflamed by?

Are you being asked to rally around a group or person in a form of attack to defend a theme? Is this theme worth it? Is the information given to argue this movement correct, your thoughts, or are you being dictated too?

As always, in the sense of investigation these are things to remember and assess. There are enough unknown people on the internet that can hurt you.  You can give yourself permission to stand back and say to yourself, “Is this what I want or am I being a prospector digging in a mud hole looking for gold when all I am going to get is splinters in my hands?” As an online consumer of information, be careful of getting involved with people you know nothing about, blindly following behind them because they seem to have the same morals as you. Not questioning strangers, their behavior, associations with other derogatory groups and comments is self-delusion if you think everyone should be given open access to your life. Not all people are good or want the best for you. Some people will work their whole life time trying to get revenge (when really whatever bad befell them was brought on by their actions) on you which in itself is an empty time machine of monotony going nowhere fast.

You know you have fallen prey to a charismatic leader when the person has convinced you that it is a good idea to attack and hurt another human being that you do not know for the charismatic leader’s reasoning and rational. People suffer this all the time in cliques with a leader that demands loyalty and followers that will not question his/her motives on why they are causing harm on the leader's behalf. A sure way of testing this theory is to say ‘no’ to the charismatic leader then watch how the leader reacts. If it ends in a negative experience for you; be thankful. You could still be blindly following them. There is a lot of times when I tell people to man up or woman up because to many people have rings or fingers up their noses dictating the kind of human being they are supposed to be. You have a mind of your own, a mouth that can say no, two feet to walk in the opposite direction from evil, and hopefully a cell phone to dial a friend when you are in trouble. The charismatic leader in your social media life could be a little man standing on a ant hill yelling come follow me to the mountaintop.  Be your own person and don’t let anyone lead you down the primrose path. It could be littered with thorns. 

Hunting can teach you a lot.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

The Way of Camaraderie: Sisterhood of the Hunt

Remember this: The difference between Point A and Point B is the distance.

People love, need, and bond over food. Hunting should be no different. Thumbing through an assortment of cookbooks I thought about a remark I read on social media. The remark was about one woman seeing derogatory comments made against American female hunters by female hunters from the United Kingdom. It didn’t really matter what the content was because that is irrelevant when it was the fact that the altercation happened at all. This made me wonder why, when considering international sisterhood in the way of the hunt, women were acting petty, shallow, and catty. I myself have experienced a sort of prejudice from foreign fields but I based that on the individual but not in the sense of all foreigners disliking me for any reason. My mind still drifting off into the cookbook and the thought of how food was important to hunting yelled out spice trade.  After most hunts there is a meal.

Spices to make the dishes mostly are the same with variations to local availability or recipe. Depending on what culture I cook from at times I play matching music to get me in the mood. Cooking and sharing a meal brings a certain positive aspect to the endeavor with as much love as you can put into the dish. This care in swinging a pot and watching the faces of people eating the food brings me a sense of gratitude and appreciation for its source; drenching my domestic moment with an aura of positivity. This experience of feeding the people caters to the relevance of inclusion through fellowship. When you put those first few warm bits into your mouth your physical being is inspired to share and take into your mental nirvana of deliciousness. As I was thinking of these problems in the world of the female hunt it was funny when I read this passage from Elisabeth Rozin’s book, “Blue Corn and Chocolate”.

“But that was only the beginning of the story, for these new foods, venturing forth to unknown lands, were transformed and refashioned along the way. Then they came back to their native shores, brought by the many immigrants who settled America, dressed up in new seasonings, prepared with a variety of new techniques, remodeled and reworked through the traditions of their adopted cuisine.

Each of these foods has its own unique and particular history, for each traveled in a different direction and was changed in different ways, reflected through a multitude of ethnic prisms. But all those separate histories, like the people who generated them, came together on these shores, creating the multifaceted and ever-changing whole that is our palate and our cuisine. For what we eat is who we are—and we are Asia, we are Africa, we are Europe and the Mediterranean and the Middle East; indeed, our food,  like us, is the world." (Rozin xii)

Hunting, much like these ethnic foods and their magical spices, based on our interactions with local people and abroad are literally the world.

After reading this I can say I have known people that do not want their culture polluted nor do they want to share their culture either. On the other hand you have people that are proud of their culture, share the culture, and it flourishes without any compromise while taking back into their own. Why can two women on different sides of the international pond not follow suit in the sharing and fellowship of hunting? I ponder this because hunting was a sport publicized as male when women walked along the metaphorical shadows. I was very taken aback but not surprised when on social media someone saw comments where it was submitted sisters of the hunt were pulling out each other’s hair. Competition will do that to you. We should always think about the way we act.

Hunting as an activity is known for camaraderie, individualism, and friendship. As an outlet into friendship you first have an introduction which leads into likes and dislikes for commonalities. From this point trust is slowly built based on each person’s part in lieu of how one carries themselves morally or by one’s treatment of another. If you see a ‘friend’ mistreating another person one day you may be the recipient of this same behavior. The same goes for watching female hunters online saying terrible things to other females; do you want that negativity in your life or on your retinas? 

Females in the past were hunting but not publicized as much as men. Since previous years hunting has been under attack for mostly killing animals. It has been interesting for me to watch the male dominated sport being shifted through media to a family affair and the inclusion of women as a buffer to fight the onslaught of anti-hunting sentiment but one does wonder if that anti-sentiment goes away will women once more be pressed out so the sport can become male dominated? I asked this because it is not far-fetched for a person to conceive of this idea if you have had relationships before. You can think of it as someone being picked on so they go find re-enforcements to either scare the bully only to turn on the person that helped you in the first place. I think I read a comment somewhere about taking a bullet for someone only to learn later they were the ones pulling the trigger? Or a false friend that stabs you in the back instead of the chest? If you look at the past efforts of anti-hunting sentiment it was mostly viewed as female tree hugging animal lovers excluding men where now the female element has been added to counter this imbalance. Men love to watch women fight one another just take a look at the history of women’s mud wrestling. If men could stand on the side lines and watch the bikini tops go a-flying they would be there right on top of it like a fly on crap. Women are being used to buffer hunting opposition so I asked myself do they not know when they smite one another what it really means or can do in the way of measured harm. Why would one participate in such behavior in the first place if it is counter-productive to one’s efforts? If the tide of the war slowly evaporated would women slowly be pushed back to a more domesticated role as time has so eloquently established in her histories?  With this let me be clear I don’t think all men are nefarious beings bent on wrecking the lives of women. People in general do a bang up job all on their own.

In societies, we are use to categorizing different groups to make life more secure for us. We know where it belongs even if we know nothing about it. It’s the lie we live. Prejudices range from fashion choices, ethnic background, culture, weight, historical wrongdoing, status, wealth or poverty, and the list goes on. You could categorize people by the way they trim their toenails; bitten or snipped. Why as women who hunt do some of us stoop to mistreating each other in a tacky and shallow fashion?

I saw a comment made by a person from the United Kingdom that stated people from there could not understand United States hunting culture. I wondered why you have to understand anything. Just enjoy it if you travel abroad. People don’t enjoy much anymore because everything is excised down to its anatomical remnants. I think of field dressing here because by the time you hack a deer carcass up to its smallest parts there is nothing to understand but putting it in a freezer bag to forget until you decide you want to make a meal of it. Thought process gone because you know the process and it’s all utility from there.

If an outsider is unable to understand a hunting culture there are ways to explore and find it out. Always keep an open mind but beware of insulting people because since the invention of social media everyone has brittle feelings. What would be funny to you will be a horrible insult to someone else and they will not ask you to clarify.

Quite frankly it is more beneficial to make a friend than an enemy. The only time you need an enemy is to combat an enemy. This wastes a lot of time and energy so don’t make enemies. If you think someone is your enemy ask them straight out. Most of the time it is a stupid misunderstanding where both parties are to blame for lack of communication. I am sure if they hate you enough they will answer back for yeah or nay. Each person has a different perspective on the ethos of the hunting aspect.  Building relationships has become harder and harder. Social media is rift with cliques, clubs, or gangs where if you don’t smell like a hunter, look like a hunter, or kiss ass to another hunter you are not included. Clearly, I do not plan on keeping the chapstick companies in business either.

I wondered why women would act like that. I had a conversation with someone it was purposed a sort of envy. If female hunters in the states have more freedoms to hunt in a time when the United Kingdom is crunching down on hunting I can see where this is happening. It’s like passive aggressive actions through displacement but instead of kicking the dog at home (UK) you are going over to someone else’s house and kicking theirs (USA). I will say this since the introduction of social media there is a gross saturation of 'attention whores' vying for the numbers. Businesses are also in stiff competition for commodity sales and 'the next best thing'. If you don't have a niche you are in the rat race and even then someone is spying over your shoulder.  (Using the UK only through example which could be anywhere really.)

I was also told recently from a source that there are male hunters that get online making female profiles to target and attack female hunters as a way to keep manliness in the hunt. This information came from a male source that had information on his brethren's misdeeds.

If you are being negative towards your hunting sisters the only thing you will acquire is alienation, forming toxic relationships with other negative people, cheating yourself out of a potential good friend, resentment, exclusion, and anger. The big thing is isolation and making your world smaller than what it should be and less rich. I would rather have chocolate than rotten fish but some people munch the rotten fish like it is good and cry out for more.

If you are good to your sisters and they show love back you are in for support, camaraderie, stable relationships that help you flourish and bring new opportunities, variety, positive experiences, and yes…..love. I would put my money on the positive side than the negative side because even if it makes great strides will only fall back into darkness and despair. Time is all that it requires.

This makes me go back to the idea of a sweat lodge where everyone goes in on equal footing to find out that down to your bare bones your suffering is the same in quality but not in quantity. In a world that is so self-centered and narcissistic people cannot see there is importance in some things and other things are just down right ridiculous to hold onto such as petty squabbles.

It would be a rational idea to spend time on someone and get to know them or their culture in a non-judgmental fashion. Why exclude friendship when the person is a perfectly good human being. (I should say here that there are socially challenged people that are perfectly good human beings but stumble and fall causing themselves some misinterpretation. If this is the case, make your peace and start again. There is nothing wrong with a do-over).

In a call for solidarity amongst female hunters, when you are having conversations on the internet or in person, think in terms of what you have in common. Do not think  of the difference, unless you can find a positive in it.  You want your life to be beautiful and full of memorable experiences through family, friends, or your own personal time. Another way female hunters can hurt each other is to spread gossip or clutching. Clutching is when more than one female spites another just for shits and giggles. Men do this too. If someone tells you gossip on another person without proof, find out if it is true. They may have no idea someone is trying to blackball them. Again, they may not care because people that participate in that sort of thing shouldn’t be in your path or life anyway. We all go into the hunting sweat lodge together and suffer the same kinds of problems. Be good to one another and hunting will be good to you. You have more to lose than gain. These facets should be recognized regardless of your biological sex at birth.

I always think in terms of making a friend but sometimes even in my experience you might have to kiss a barrel of ugly un-princely toads to find one worth keeping. That one can love you a life time. You’ll be richly rewarded. Besides, why participate in a sport when you have no class or sportsmanship?

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

 Literature Cited:

 Rozin, Elisabeth. Blue Corn and Chocolate.  New York, NY: Alfred A Knopf, Inc., 1992. Print. pg. xii.