Dear Hunters: Endowed To Protect

Remember this: Causative Melancholy writes an unread letter.

Dear Hunter: I am about to let you know what’s up.

Now that Thanksgiving 2016 has the derogatory stain of Human and Constitutional rights violations by a continuous stream of militarized police violence on the Standing Rock Sioux by Morton County Police, DAPL, Dakota Access, LLC, and outsourced security companies-the one thing I would like to see, which cannot find, is a full environmental impact statement for the conditions a DAPL crude oil leak in the ground implied under the water source of the Standing Rock Sioux. 

There should be one. This environmental impact statement should include the complete expanse of the pipeline through its subsequent states and anything it affects, even human beings. Where is it? How can Dakota Access, LLC build without the environmental impact statement? If there is an environmental statement, why is it not available for the public?

The XL Keystone Pipeline had an environmental impact study-where is DAPL’s?

Questions. Questions.

Free media is focusing on infringement of an indigenous spiritual movement, human rights, desecration of sacred burial mounds, and Dakota Access with the help of North Dakota’s governance to pull a Viking move on the Standing Rock Sioux. When you read the content of official letters between lawyers and different departments involved-one wonders where that bit of information is.

Celebrities got involved. It is a shame that the common person can’t make a statement and it is heard. It has to be known person with a huge following. That didn’t work-DAPL put up a barb wire fence while officers walked over the burial mound like it was nothing.

Yet a small person can stand up and make a big sound-when everyone else joins in repeating the words.

Foreign places even showed support but they are a long ways off.

I have been trying to put it all into perspective with the lack of evidence, available research on the part of science in order to do such a project, and turning the screw so you can look in another prism of the key hole.

When you review pipeline projects, jobs are generated but do not last forever. The project itself destroys habitat in areas and it takes time for those areas to recoup.

There is a problem with keeping up a standard of maintenance and upkeep on pipelines to keep leaks from occurring. Corrosion, as I have read is a guilty party. If an oil pipeline is sixty feet under a water source, at the mercy of the agents of nature, and not visually inspectable, is it proper to say this is favorable conditions for undetectable leaks over a period of time that could cause extreme damage to the ground, ground water, and those living things above it?

Then a company drives that right through someone’s family graveyard-that is a morally bankrupt concept to observe.

For writing purposes’ sake, I am going to reason that what has been done to Standing Rock is good enough reason to revolt. If you need something else to drive it home-here it is. Anyone else that can think of a valid reason to support this argument, feel free to write your own-and spread the word.

I may dwell in darkness in my blog, but readers tend to write and spread the word. Go forth and multiple.

Out-of-sight, out-of-mind. This pipeline stretches estimate 1,130 (or 1172) miles-with a certain amount of that underground. It goes through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and on to Illinois. That is 1,130 miles of potential damage to wildlife habitat, outdoor infringement due to No Access due to damage, etc. There is the issue of the Oil Company cleaning up the mess it has created, and everyone else living with the fall-out from it.

How fair it is that a big corporation, or company can act as they please, as it would seem, to whomever they want, yet depending on which state you live in, the constituent has to go to the local government, ask for a building permit to add to their house, or have natural resources come out to their property and tell the constituent where a hole can be dug to put in a water source?

Does Human habitation ever occur in an Environmental Impact study? 

If it does, why was the Standing Rock Sioux not included in its ledgers? Or someone was hoping to rub the Standing Rock Sioux from it in the hopes-no one would care about them.

Not this day.

The idea the other states involved caters to the acceptance of something that could ruin their quality of life exists, but look the other way with the hopes nothing bad will happen. Then I think, Flint Michigan and the tainted water-among other stories.

Constituents were disregarded in the construction of policies and ideas to supposedly serve the community without proper consideration for the possible outcomes that could harm them. In its execution of said plan, disregarded ensuring quality material and a plan to monitor were lacking. There didn’t seem to exist consistent monitoring for safety issues and placed regulations for water quality.

You have distrust in politicians, and the politician’s inability to use sound science to ensure quality of life of the human constituents through regulations that stipulate a section dedicated to problem-solving in the now, instead of the “after the fact”.

No one said a politician had to be a scientist, but a politician has a world of scientists at the ready to give sound input on issues where there is questionable content. All they have to do is ask the question, receive the input, and make a sound decision, or send that idea back to the drawing board until someone works out the kinks.

If you can’t execute it without harm-review, revise, and then act.

Dear Hunter-this is where you come in. If you hunt any of those states, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois-go to that states Department of Natural Resources for hunting and google the wild game. Do you want to lose that?

If these people can ramrod a tribe of indigenous peoples, when someone decides to privatize Public Lands-do you think the militarized police aren’t going to show up and spray you in the face with mace, shoot rubber bullets at you, blind you with lights to keep you up at night, and refuse to let you build a fire in freezing condition after spraying cold water on you to give you hypothermia?

Do you think you will be different? Somehow, your life has more value than Standing Rock-no, it doesn’t.

Standing Rock fights for the same things-it varies in their timeline-but the same things. They fight for all of us. Even you good hunter.

How you value land and hunting is the same as Standing Rock with some varying in belief-but you know it is sacred, you need it, and it is yours to defend-it is your home.

If you don’t believe me look up the fight for public lands and hunting. See what your google strike gets. I believe that is one of the keystone issues Steven Rinella speaks on; if you need some credibility here, because what do I know-I am a woman.

When you have elected a President that can’t be trusted in his word, you have to wait for the shoe to drop; God forbid where it fall.

When shady politicians forego the quality and value of human life to hire a get-away-crew to do less than excellent work which causes sickness and disease-maybe you need to rethink being silent because you were never promised it wouldn’t happen to you.

If a United States veteran, who made a vow to protect the American people can stand up for and with the Standing Rock Sioux, then Hunters everywhere need to get off their asses and realize what this means to them.

Not ever hunter is a likable character. Some are self-serving, like to see themselves in photos, and act as elitists over all of us-but you, Hunter-are a free agent of the wild. It is your endowment to protect it. I am eyeballing you to scientists of the world.

Yet, you are free to chose.

Its water, land, family, wildlife, a way of life, and the things you spout are tradition, to be pasted to your kids-for future generations. 

That is no different than Standing Rock Sioux. They have the same innate right to it-and it is being tread on.

Its habitat, wildlife, all things we know as Nature that restores our soul when the trappings of this world, wear us down with stress, depression, and lack of hope.

One of our mottoes as the American Public: Don’t tread on us.

When did we give it away? Why do we normalize the treading on other people that are fighting for a reason that can’t be argued?

When did we stop standing up with our ethnic brothers who want the same decency and respect-the same people whose ancestors walked through lives of happiness, abuse, torture, life and death for us to get here?

How did people come to disrespect the self and each other, and normalize the things our ancestors and people now, died for?

Some people don't like what I have to say. If I was having a hard time, I would want someone like me to show up. Standing Rock is having a hard time, that is all they want to-and people to respect their belief that pipeline not go under their water source, or anywhere near their sacred burial sites. They don't want putrid water. Water is life.

Dear Hunter: You best be standing up and vocalizing. You are not immune to this. Don't wait for them to drive something through your hunting grounds. If you shirk you duty at this, when your hunting is gone, or you cry for help and it goes unheard-I told you so.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore, čhúŋwaŋča waók kté 

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Makes you wonder if the same thing happened to Standing Rock. 
When you read down through this you'll find this statement:

The scope of this task was restricted to assessing the impacts in the Columbia River from these two scenarios; we did not evaluate potential impacts in the Pacific Ocean or along the Pacific Coast. We also did not separately assess how the public or Indian Tribes would value the potential losses to natural resources if either of these spills were to occur, although these values may be at least partly accounted for in the methods we used. Thus, we expect that we are underestimating the potential impacts to fisheries and the potential natural resource damages from these spill scenarios.

http://192.168.1.1:8181/http://columbiariverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2615-137-CFTE-Ex1503-000095-ENV-Report_05-13-16.pdf

A Vested Interest: Living Commodities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

African wildlife and trophy hunting is a people problem.

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

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

Proceeds. 

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

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

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

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

I thought about ownership.

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

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

Back to Africa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the root of all that evil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Catting Around with Tumors.

Bleeding Growth on Catfish

Remember this: Follow the water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sat at the observing tower thinking.

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

I looked around for information.

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

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

Catfish lurk near soil sediment in rivers looking for mussels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had more questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Links to read:

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

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

Just because Science is awesome.

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

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