Holy Punctuation!

Remember this: At the changing of the Guard of the Great Blogger, sometimes you have to watch out for the data running off the rails. 

If you have read my previous posts, you will see it has been littered with poor punctuation, etc. Due to Blogger changing with its updates to the programming and algorithm, there are times the format goes out of correction and turns into a diabolical nightmare for anyone with pet peeves on correct grammar. Even the font has to be sassy. 

So apologies for that. 

Grammar and punctuation ghosts start popping up left and right. Since the Dark Ages of Me on this platform, there are gap years when I fell into Corporate slavery, hunting melancholy, and my life path ran across many states. Those were the Dark Ages along with malicious mystery bad actors that searched for me high and low and branded me a Criminal since the Third Grade! 

As eyes are reading, I am going back to those and correcting them. 

Thank you in advance.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Copyright © 2026  All Rights Reserved

Developing Florida State Parks 2024

 

 

Remember this: Let Nature Be.

Recently, I have become aware of the issues Florida residences are experiencing in regard to developing infrastructure in Florida State Parks for tourism and entertainment. 

Historically, when you consider the weather and subsequent flooding alone, it makes you wonder who came up with this idea? I know the need for money has everyone squeezing the soul out of a lemon, but this gives new anxiety to humankind's progression to a nature-less dystopian reality. 

The executive office of Govenor Ron Desantis has proposed nine amendments to nine existing management plans of nine state parks in Florida. This is coming from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 

The argument for this is economic growth, expanding public access, increasing outdoor activity, and to improve Floridian quality of life, but does it? Is it a great argument? Is this based upon what is best for the location, or what goes in the state, federal, or local coffers? What about the ecosystem and the biological participants existing in mostly untouched areas? When you are looking for the devil, it is usually county, state then federal. Everything follows suit. The county is all about progression and how it can expand town out into the country. The first sign is the infiltration of energy, cell service, and water companies into areas that are not on a grid. Once you are on a grid, then you become an unwitting hostage to its dictates. Not that those systems are directly bad, but it brings housing and structure that eats away at land and Nature like the Nothing. This is when you have human population growth because people need place to go. This needing a place to go out competes wildlife and Nature. The only predator(s) we seem to have is bad food choices, disease, virus, bacteria and human incompetence among other things. 

These are the state parks that are listed as targets for outdoor recreation economy. 

• Honeymoon Island State Park in Pinellas County (lodging, pickleball, and disc golf)
• Hillsborough River State Park (lodging, pickleball, and disc golf)
• Oleta River State Park
• Jonathan Dickinson State Park
• Doctor Von D. Mizell-Eula Johnson State Park
• Anastasia State Park
• Camp Helen State Park
• Topsail Hill Preserve
• Grayton Beach State Park 

There is a proposal for putting a golf course on the state parks. Why? Are there not plenty of those everywhere else?  Don't build another one because you are bored and unchallenged.

Let's look at a real-life golf course that is in the lowlands of South Carolina: The Witch Golf Links. The Witch Golf links was closed (2021-2022) due to excessive flooding that cause the course to be under-utilized or not utilized at all during its golfing seasons. One of the co-partners stated flooding would be a regular thing. This course has 38 acres of wetland and floodplain within its boundaries. Initially, the plan was to build 326-home residential development consisting of 115 townhomes, 211 single family dwellings, and six acres of commercial development. The county had plans to develop this property flood or no flood. At some point, someone made the good decision to not put structures over the wetlands. 

This makes you wonder. How can you look at a property and think this is a bad idea and do it anyway? This is the resonating thought in the Floridian brain pan when this was put on the table for them to eat and it was a definite no go meal. 

The golf course was sold to which the Horry County Council decided it would be developed into a multi-family housing to give a wider birth to the wetlands and swamps where the front nine ran through it. Here you have a property that went from golf course to housing development. 

Who did Horry County decide would be desperate enough to market to and those people would buy an expensive house on a flooded area? Then live with taxes, debt and consequences.

The lesson/idea here for Florida is once DeSantis plunders the state parks with the upgrades and it fails then will it be turned into a housing development? Is it really just a prep for this sort of thing. Gives new meaning to buying Swampland in Florida. 

Not to be a bad cookie, sometimes you can mesh lodgings with state parks. Santee state park has yurts that you can stay in, but they are on the bank of the lake with a pier. People stay there because its down in the woods and they don't want to stay in a hotel. You do have to come to God on the fact you will be visited by insects and snakes. There can be a good balance to the situation where the money goes back to the park. This park has a sink hole problem so that would go to repairing the road system inside the park. When you think of lodging you get into the realm of the wastewater management that comes with people. When you have natural disasters and rising water tables the issues are real.

The pickle ball activity should be left to the towners because you would have to build a court and that takes up surface area and needs to be built to withstand increment weather, as does disc golf. Is anyone going to use it regularly? Upgrades to parks tend to not be used as often and fall into disrepair. Now it is money in and lost. 

Of course, there is always gateway development. What is that? When the local governance decides they want to ease development on constituents and do a little then when that fails go all in and put a bigger spread down because you have now accepted the buildings, gardens, and structures that are there. What you see every day becomes unseen in the long run. You get desensitized to the reality of it because you don't see the minuscule damage going on under the surface.  

The most pressing issue with having our state parks developed is that it falls into the hands of corporations that will see the area as a cash cow or moneymaker on its way to being privatized.  

If you are going to develop over an area, get creative and build things that are engineering feats, work with the nature ecosystem and can withstand a Category 5 hurricane. When you think of life over dollar, dollar is going to win depending on who wants it in their pocket.  

Ultimately, the concern of Floridians on their state parks is the gentrification towards a house development through cherry picked alterations onto the landscape of the park. It is the impact these alterations have on the now existing residents, wildlife and surrounding ecosystems. 

We know our state parks as a place that we can go to get away from the ever-increasing dystopian quality of human life. We resound with Nature by unplugging from it all. Now, someone wants to push an aspect we do not want in that landscape for availability's sake. That is something we already have at home, work, or our daily lives. When you look at human population growth or even migration from other countries, I am surprised that there are not tent camps up everywhere.  Why does everything have to have the life squeezed out of it till all that is left is empty casings with nothing left to give? 

If you would like to learn more, click the link and head over to the Florida DEP page to keep current on breaking news for this situation. 

https://floridadep.gov/about-dep

Just remember, if it is worth it, it is worth fighting for. Once it is ruined, that is a struggle to get it back to a semblance of what it once was. 

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

  

Icons

Remember this: Objects in side mirrors may be closer than they appear.

The word icon floated on the radar in the world of hunting, as a bleep here and a bleep there. This word is attached to males in conversation, when referring to other male hunters they hold in high esteem and people of history past. There are some females working on situating themselves as icons, even with a negative stigma.

I said the word icon suspiciously. It conjured up paintings I admired at a local museum. Beautiful, gold treated iconoclastic images centered around religious themes. The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, the Virgin Mary, the cross, the bible, angels, devils, and the Word. The grim reaper is an icon of death but don't fear him.

Madonna, Warhol, Mickey Mouse, buffalo, and Cobra Commander are all icons of some sort.

I researched people considered hunting icons, yet all I saw were current faces questing to find glory. Truth be told, I have no icon of hunting that I look up to. I find some of them highly entertaining but not because of the hunting.

I realized after exploring this word, it can be representative of some image, idea, or person with no religious context. This image could represent two different objects in reality, yet share a metaphoric meaning or symbolism. Icon could also be interchanged with the word idol. An easy example is apple pie. Apple pie is a dessert with apples and pastry. Others consider it a metaphor for the American dream, where it's a comfort and everyone can enjoy a slice of the pie. All that from pie.

I began to square on the difference between historical and current would-be icons. Daniel Boone and Theodore Roosevelt are considered icons of hunting and conservation. These individuals are placed on a pedestal of reverence because of achievements and lifestyles. Work ethic could be relevant to their placement as icons. As people, we tend to look up to people we would like to emulate and pattern our lives after. If it worked for them, why not ourselves?

Boone performed a lot of acts of utility to push progress forward, not to find fame. The mindset is completely different than it was then and is now. Now it is a different kind of agenda being pushed. The Wilderness is in outer space. People want to be icons for fame and fortune. There might be some level of putting back into the system as a balance to greed and vanity.

I reflect on Steven Rinella's fascination for Daniel Boone as an icon. He clearly holds Boone up as a measuring stick. I am not judging but pointing out the obvious. There are other hunters that hold Ernest Hemingway up as an icon. In other countries, the person changes but the sport doesn't. Icons are everywhere and in no short supply.  At least Rinella does do informative media that brings information to the public where issues of public lands, conservation, cooking and different points of view. Excluding Rinella,  it's hard to find a hunting celebrity that isn't sporting pretentiousness.

I considered Roosevelt. He is everywhere on social media. His ghost will never die. Roosevelt realized progress was destructive and decided it needed to be pushed back or lose it all. His mindset came from problems, solutions, desires, and necessity.

These two particular men did not set out to fixate themselves into the minds of a nation as icons. They were simple men working toward goals and their stories were picked up and carried far and wide as legend. In Roosevelt's case, he was already high-profile due to his political shenanigans. Boone was just all over the place on greet and meets in the wilderness. Spin doctors of research could manipulate content and rewrite the way a person is represented to push the capitalist machine. It is seen in media today as mediocre drama and reality television.

Boone and Roosevelt didn't have publicists, lawyers, agents, and a group of people online researching the trending topics to keep them relevant. They didn't have online battles with strangers to fuel causes or the hashtag. They did honest to God work. In today's world, there is no end to the amount of information that can help you build a campaign to promote yourself or something else. There was no Go-Pro to track and record their every movement then upload to the internet.

All you have to do is decide you want to be famous then find someone to plot your course, make pivotal decisions to your image, produce quality product and you are on your way. I do interject here that you would need to recruit someone to hide the bodies as well. The biggest coup is getting the majority vote by popularity, not competency in actually doing the job. When I say job, I do not mean the manipulation of information in a documentary of hunting when the truth is far from the fiction of it all.

I was reading this:

“the soul's reduction to the sheer minerality of an image entailed the elimination of man's highest quality: rationality. The image is “dead”: the icon is idol. The formula depends upon the confusion between the material and formal aspects of the icon: such is , of course, the question of all visual mediation of the concept realm without the added complication of the relations between the sacred and the secular.” ( Weiss 18)

I reflected on hunters that were referred to as icons by their peers. To be honest, I didn't see them as icons or famous. If you have a cult following, you could become an icon to them but not to everyone in the world. This application of the word icon is limited to a pool of people that recognize you as such, not that you fully deserve it worldwide. It does become a little disturbing when it borders on idol worship.  

Does a person looking up to an icon ever surpass the icon and place themselves in the icon's role? Is this the goal ? Are you really competing with an image defined by deeds or misconception of the icon's true reality? How does one compete with dead people?

People can determine for themselves if they are worthy in a pursuit. You don't need to have an icon to do great deeds. Recently, I viewed Leonardo Dicaprio giving a speech to the UN as the Messenger of Peace. He wasn't gunning to become an icon in the arena of Climate Change activism. He merely wanted to point out a truth and incite the people of the world to be morally responsible for our home, each other, and living things that can't make these kinds of decisions to act.  He has moved himself from actor to world advocate in several shorts moves of the global chessboard. It wasn't because he was plotting and planning greatness but the motivator behind the actions.

Moving people to care for their ecosystems is right up there with life and death.  This is critical thought and coming to some truth you can't look away from.  Not I want to be famous, because he already is. There is nothing wrong with finding some meaning in life. To bad we can't have this quality of person running for the presidency. Right now, we are coming up craps in the candidate department.  Scientists, where are you?

I will also say here, as hunters, even though DiCaprio or  Somerhalder doesn't probably approve of the hunting lifestyle, we should put this aside and support this Climate Change endeavor. It does affect those components that hunting is made up of. Humans, animals, ecosystem, and life in general are affected, so why would we not get behind this concept? I always try to find a point where I can arguing that it is a bigger thing for me to put aside differences and find that one thing in common to jusitify doing something. Even if that one thing is because it is the right thing and only thing to do.

Once again, here is another famous face, Ian Somerhalder. He was designated a UNEP Global Ambassador and has been working with the United Nations Environmental Program.  He has spoken before Congress and in Barbados on the plight of animal species, environmentalism, and the need to make better choices when dealing with out use or abuse of the planet's resources.

Yes, these are celebrities but the younger generation can be influenced by the right idea regardless of the person. Parents should get more involved with these ideas to better our world, alleviate suffering, and treat our fellow main in more respectful ways.

I do believe an outlet for people to stand up for such things should be generated to open public dialogue to these issues, instead of forcing people to take to the streets to show they are serious about issues.

Getting back on topic. 

Competition does drive some people on to out do another, even if that other person is dead. There is a constant running of the rails, as in horse racing, where once pointed down the track, at the sound of the bell, you find the finish line and the winner's circle. Is this at the expense of a fractured leg? Who knows. One must try anyway without completely trying to kill yourself or someone else.

I am not saying one should never have role models. Icons are role models under the label icon. Should one be the very best they can be without using someone else's accomplishments as a meter stick ? Yes. I do believe that your shenanigans and word of mouth can increase your chances of becoming a famous or infamous icon. If you are going to elevate a person or thing to icon status, it should at least have a truthful, unselfish concept driving it. Otherwise, it is as shallow as the meaning or motive placed upon or driving it. It should never be because someone pointed you out as the icon of something to make you famous.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

Literature cited:

Weiss, Allan S. Perverse Desire and the Ambiguous Icon. State University of New York, Albany. 1994. Print. pp. 18

For links:
http://www.unep.org/wed/ The United Nations Enviroment Program.

http://www.leonardodicaprio.com/ Leonardo DiCaprio

http://www.isfoundation.com/welcome Ian Somerhalder Foundation

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~

An Extreme Competition......

 

Remember this: Read the fine print then if your intuition tells you something stinks...it most likely does.

I was perusing the internet looking for hunting when I fell upon the Extreme Huntress Competition. I knew of this from previous searches but each time I always said no and moved on.

This time I looked a little closer.

In my critique, the first thing I looked at was the mission statement:

“Our goal—create positive role models for woman who want to participate in hunting. With 50% divorce rates and kids becoming invested in sports as (web page typo) a younger and younger age, we feel if mom goes hunting, so will her children. “~Extreme Huntress Competition Website~.

This was a poorly thought out mission statement. It needs an over-haul. There is nothing on promoting conservation, diplomacy, policy-making, individuality, family, or any thing definitive that supports this competition.

I was dumbfound. All of these participants were in the hunting arena already; not new-comers. Big truth here, mom going hunting doesn't guarantee or influence whether your child will be a hunter through and through all their lives. Unless the parent takes away his or her right to decision making, individuality, or the fact they have to agree with everything the parent wants them to do. Momma made me do it. I had no choice. Mom going hunting is not going to stop a son from robbing a store, flipping a new car, or having a shoot out with the police. Ergo again, going hunting with Mom is not going to save Mom the anger when her daughter or son finds a unsuitable mate that drags them away to some place where they forget hunting because bills and babies take over. If Mom or Dad is lucky their ideal dreams of a family will come true but the reality in this life time is, under the weight of the world, families are torn asunder. Family members are scattered to the winds.

Some of these women could be mothers eventually but there are some that have kids already. Quite frankly you can't dictate to a woman how she will raise her offspring. Another thought is how an outside entity takes it upon themselves to try and model adults who already have parents that raised them along time ago.

I then thought as Tina Turner would sing, “What does love have to do with it?” Divorce rates have no influence over becoming a hunter. Divorce might facilitate things but its not the one driving factor in break-ups; infidelity, people evolve with different values or ideas, or it shouldn't have been in the first place. What can push you to hunt is the fact you have no money or food and looking at a starving baby with no governmental or community support. You are a lamb tossed to the wolves. You shoot and eat them or they eat you. You either want to hunt or someone introduces you to it, willingly or not.

Mothers are all different. You can't guarantee a mother will be decent. Some women toss their babies in dumpsters. My old Professor of Bones at the technical college was a substitute teacher for the elementary school. She had a really bad kid then went to see his mother. The house had no electricity, food, roaches, and rats while being unlivable. The child in question was left there to fend for himself while the biological mother went out trying to score drugs and food for herself. She called the Child Welfare Agency who later let her adopt the child and he finished school. This substitute teacher wasn't his biological mother. Yet she took him as her own. There are some men that make better mothers than mothers. Having the title mother doesn't mean a thing if you don't do all the things an ideal mother would do (yet we all having human failings).

After I got through with the mission statement, I wondered what exactly in benefits where these applicants getting. I read the rules and regulations. I was concerned these ladies were being taken advantage of. Vanity will open the door for this mishap.

It seemed the Sponsor was the owner of all data. Reading into this I concurred that these women were really being used by the Sponsors because the Sponsors were getting the free advertising over and over for the competition. I bet that people holding it got a fat paycheck. I also went to each site and saw not one whiff of an announcement or even advertisement for what the Sponsor was offering in the way of prizes. As a Sponsor you should be defining what is to be offered to winners and participants because no one should go home empty handed. I gathered this because if you are promoting women in hunting; make it worth their while and don't waste their time or capitalize on their backs. They are not your personal mules for advertising or money; don't white wash taking advantage of someone because you know women want to be taken seriously.

I skipped down to the Finalists.

I see this: This hunt will be filmed for a series of videos called Extreme Huntress Competition. I wondered how much the company makes for these episodes which would be put up on the internet, world wide and television. I then looked at the Grand Prize which is an original award designed by artist Mark James and the fact they will reign as Extreme Huntress  for a period of a year. Any other prize detail will be at the sole discretion of the Sponsor. I guess after this its all merchandising, modeling, and face time to the masses.

Then I see Finalist Expense: All expenses not specified herein are the sole responsibility of the finalist, including without limitation all transportation to and from departure point for hunt competition and awards dinner, award dinner tickets for guest or spouse, award dinner lodging and meals. Texas hunting license, personal expenses, medical insurance packages, trip insurance, trophy prep, taxidermy, and other miscellaneous costs participant chooses to incur.

I thought if you got that far with things the competition Sponsors should foot the bill. Its their contest they made up while sticking the bill to the participants. I am sure the Sponsor will be making a percentage of all earnings off the winner or any of the other participants if they should choose to use them in upcoming competition advertisements, interviews, etc. Trust me, unless they are not financially savvy, someone is making money somewhere. Otherwise ,why do it?

I read the release which makes it sound like the disbursement of the prize is the participation in hunt/skills competition. I wondered if this meant the participants already received their prize in the form of the hunt/competition? I read that the Finalist prize package had a retail value of no less than $5000 per finalist. So there is 20 semi-finalists. I also think I read it changes depending on what you kill. Prized before you compete?

I then see Hunt Cancellation: The Sponsor is not held liable for fees, costs, financial obligations to finalists or Grand Prize winner.

This particular item made me think these people were not people of honor or their word. Here they are willing to walk off with no responsibility for bringing these participants into a game then when things go belly up; walk off and leave the women holding the empty bag.

Really and truly when you read the Conditions and Participation the women have to agree to such terms just to be able to participate. Its not right. They do all the work, one gets some glory but the Sponsor reaps the benefit and moves on to the next face the following year.

My thoughts on this were grave yet appalled. I can't believe some days the lengths people will go to take advantage of people or use a woman for selfish ends.  There must not be much to hunting with these competitions. How can you take another hunter or huntress and put them in a game, knowing they could get hurt or killed then turn your back on them because of a condition the Sponsor and the competition generated? This is sacrificing someone through their desire to be renown for a title that doesn't have much value after a year except to the person who doesn't need it anyway and on top of that there is someone out in the world that could hunt your pants off but they aren't vain or can be manipulated through vanity. I guess the trophy could be melted down, recast and sold as a kudu statue.

My thoughts were this was a sham and a shame. Of course, I could be completely wrong in this but there was no information to dictate the contrary.

I thought instead of a competition, why not review what these women have done over the course of a year because hunting is a life long thing not just X amount of episodes that are under confined conditions for mass consumption and entertainment. Each one of these women could be doing something different and unique unto itself yet they are being defeathered meticulously. Pushing their essays out is one thing but really getting into the grit of a person is another thing. I could probably go a googling on the internet and find someone who really does have a handle on hunting ethic and ideology to bang out a good essay that makes me look like a saint while my true self is questionable.

Instead of telling you who they are and what they are about it the same old thing you can find on the internet, kinda like a telephone monologue at Pizza Hut. "We have thick crust or thin? Which do you prefer?" They will tell you what it takes to get them chosen to win. People lie on job interviews all the time but when it comes time to do the job; you'll be found out.

In the way of competitions, I wondered where were the scholarships, prizes of merit for a mother that would help make her life easier, what groups would this Extreme Huntress be representing, and how much work would she be asked to do to cover ground, or being reimbursed. You can get more done with more than one woman. Who would she be uplifting? What actually are the platforms she would be working from or on? Why make one woman bear that much weight on top of her daily life and trials when she has sisters all over the world? Why weren't these women taken into consideration?

If anyone were going to sign up for something like this you have to question some things. Is it going  to help women who hunt instead of showcase one person with very little or no outstanding of personal ideals on hunting? If this global or national push for showcasing women in hunting can be expressed to the public to uplift anyone or is it really is nothing more than a beauty contest based upon shallow popularity and a short essay?

 

I do suspect there will probably be some anger to my writing this but I am not bashing the competition but I do think the ladies can be treated a little better and with respect; not a commoditity to give a second or third party publicity.

If you are going to expose the world to female hunters find a better way of doing it. The public at large needs to see the forums, the activity, issues being addressed, and average people doing the work. There are faceless people doing astounding things everyday yet we push one or two people because they won a competition that gave them an accolade. A work of art on your mantle does nothing for conservation or hunting. It gathers dust which causes you more work because you spend time cleaning it instead of doing something more productive.   

I read all twenty of the essays. There were several women who I thought of yet I voted for one. The people who quoted work like a resume didn't appeal to me because they were going solely on accolades and accomplishments not personal beliefs or what drove them forward in hunting. 

She was the one that I read her entire essay. The one little girl that admitted being a hardcore huntress didn't look positive. She has thought about how she wants to represent herself and what she is doing. She's honest and tells you she is financially challenged in a humble way. She put in the effort and was offered jobs based on the work she was already doing. Her wording of the conditions of not being taken seriously, how its not about the money its about the experience and the knowledge of learning something in particular. At her age, she understands its not about fame.

Fame doesn't last but it is what you do with fame in the way of hunting and other people being introduced to the sport. The best thing she did was write about her mentality and how she respected hunting as an act. I still liked Sandra Mas and her ballsy-ness at becoming a hunter in Africa, Helga Wimmer, and Nikita Dalke but my favorite was Beka Garris because she vocalized it better. I don't give my vote lightly.

Overall, I could see where this would spotlight women in hunting but it being the best and most well thought out platform; no. Most likely the person who really deserves it will not get it.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Here is the link if you would like to vote and give your thoughts. Nothing like free advertising.

http://www.extremehuntress.com/category/current-huntresses/

The Shifting Shadows

Remember this: The midday sun casts a shadow on the ground but the setting sun only makes a solid form appear like an empty shadow when really it is solid as a rock.

Recently I modified a wooden dilapidated chicken brooder into a coop with heat lamps to keep the chickens I have hand raised since April-May of last year warm. The golden buffs were complaining like two old ladies and seeing them with frost huddled up on a wire laying pen made me feel sorry for their plight. I was their care-taker so I felt compelled to build a better mouse trap for them. I must say my carpentry skills are becoming occult I tell you.

I resembled a chicken thief sneaking up on the fowl in the dark to gently grab their legs and shove them “into the light”. They showed their appreciation by dropping a couple of eggs off the next morning. Seeing my business was done I walked around to feed my horses. As I was tossing sweet feed I looked out over the back field to see if I could detect movement. Near the swamp I thought I saw a dark shape move. I walked out of the corral to get a better look. Here I was doing the three-step until I was out in the barren garden behind some very thin wispy dried weeds. I stood and stared for a while. Lo and behold seven dark shapes strolled out along the barbed wire fence. I wondered if I could get any closer. I shuffled on stopping randomly and standing still. One of the horses came out and I thought she was going to blow my cover but I moved up the row. Eventually the other three horses came out and I was walking down the dirt row in the center of them. I thought two can play at that game Mr. Deer herd. I began to think about the things these tricky deer have done in the past.

I remembered over the summer I was picking string beans when I decided to lie down in the tall grass to take a rest. The light was right and I wanted to watch bugs. After a while of bug watching and wondering if a snake would slither through I got up and went about my business planning to come back to pick more beans. The next day I discover the deer have wallowed in the same area I laid down in. I scratched my head and said, “Huh.” Undoubtedly the deer tried to get my stink on them in a pivotal move of strategy to hide their scent when men with guns came a-calling. Well played; well played. How smart is that?

I realized that while looking at these deer they were nothing more than black silhouettes dancing across the late evening to disappear at their leisure into the beige high grass by a now defunct watering hole.

This shadowing effect got me to thinking about how in hunting we are obstructed, confused, or enlightened by shadows or dark solid moving objects. Seeing the movement across the fields of animal bodies that look like dark specks, or see things ghosting by in our periphery before first light or at the close of day will mess with your mind.

The shadow that is cast by mid-day sun is not solid yet in the evening the lack of sunlight causes a dark shape to seem like a shadow. That is why you should always take care when you aim your gun at what you are going to pull the trigger on. If you can’t see it, don’t put yourself in a bad situation.

It’s amazing the act of casting a shadow because it can be ether-like, an illusionary solid, or even one of the mind. How could one possibly apply the shadow to hunting aside from something you think you see but might not be, all that it seems.

Here is the opportunity for the shadow of the deer to help us as individuals accept our own shadow.

“The persona is what we would like to be and how we wish to be seen in the world. It is our psychological clothing and it mediates between our true selves and our environment just as our physical clothing presents an image to those we meet. The ego is what we are and know about consciously. The shadow is that part of us we fail to see or know.” (Johnson 4)

We are followed by the shadow of things when ever there is the orb of enlightment. The shadow can not hide. Yet our shadow is constantly with us, yet we forget it is there sometimes whispering in our ears as projection. This projection is cast onto the outer realm of our bodies onto other people, things, or self.

It would be safe to say that we truly aren’t the person we really are except around people that have grown up with us or know us intimately. Outwardly we put on this display to entice other people to befriend or take us seriously with no guarantee they will do such or any idea there has to be a mutual exchange of interactions.

Accepting one's shadow to balance out the dark and light aspects of ourselves deep down is the most honest thing a person can do. Trying to rectify these two poles and bring about a certain amount of unstable balance is a challenge for the person who hunts. Owning up to the facts that we take animal life, ingest that life, and carry on in the wake of what would be considered destructive behavior is embracing that part of oneself that is capable of such things for the sake of survival. Others who are not presented with dealing with this darker half as a hunter still encounter the shadow in their life as love, hate, obsession, resentment, etc. No one is immune or above the shadow. The shadow presents itself in different ways and is never destroyed only countered.

We are solid objects that can look and seem as dark formless purveyors of death from the perspective of the outside viewer when the hunting act is considered. Being honest with yourself on why, how, and to what extent you perform as a hunter rules the way in which  you form a code of morals to deal with the world at large. This world has no limits even when attitudes are projected onto you by others. There is the constant push to be like everyone else so bonds can be formed. Is that really necessary to fit into the square my little circles? Own your darkness and you own yourself; this is when the light breaks through and comes in. Huntress, own thy shadow.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

PS. Can't wait to see which one of you magazines grabs this up and posts it on the cover, in an article or on a meme.

Literature Cited:
Johnson, Robert A. Owning Your Own Shadow, Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche. Harper Collins Publisher, New York, NY. 1971 Print.

Carmine on Bloodlust and Hunting Vs. Conservation.

Remember this: Everything has its dark side.

In a passage from James Carmine’s book, Hunting Philosophy for Everyone: In Search of the Wildlife, Carmine poses the argument of hunting not being conservation.  This is the following except:

“Hunting is not conservation. No hunter goes off into the woods to thin the herd. That is a lie hunters tell to mollify those who don’t hunt, and perhaps to themselves to qualm their fears about their own bloodlust. If hunting were really for the sake of conservation then early each spring we would simply use our tax dollars to pay a small army of lab technicians to go about the forests and fields with the most advanced satellite-enhanced equipment and, with relative ease, find the most fragile fawns and other animals scientifically deemed unbeneficial to the ecosystem, and euthanize then efficiently, painlessly, and silently. “(Carmine 242)

It could be said that to employ plans of conservation the hunters function in a utilitarian way. Hunters are used to address issues that conservationists may not have the man power to meet. This practice also offsets the cost of alleviating a problem though wage by relying on hunters need to track, stalk, and kill.

In the previous article I related to called Preventing the Establishment of a Wildlife Disease Reservoir: A Case Study of Bovine Tuberculosis in Wild Deer in Minnesota by M. Cartensen and M.W. DonCarlos, I surmised the necessity of the MNDNR to use sharpshooters to kill deer suspected of infection. Even though this practice was not well received over a period of time as the result of disease began to diminish people were not so against it. In the Minnesota example we do not have lab technicians going in the woods kindly putting sick animals down. Its shoot to kill without any predetermined test to prove sickness. It’s the old ‘shoot first ask questions later’ mentality. The hope here was maybe they could eradicate disease with a mass death killing. Was this hunter mentality? No. Was it conservation? You bet. Conservation has a dark side just like hunting with its good, bad, and sometimes right down distasteful but necessary.

In order to have a healthy sustainable population of deer the population had to be semi-eradicated in order for the Bovine TB to be hindered in its spread. This activity on the part of the MNDNR helped to keep Bovine TB from forming a stronghold in deer populations which would spread to others and domesticated livestock.

Once again I thought of Carmine’s excerpt and the Missouri Moose problem. Were DNR workers not fitting moose with high tech gadgetry to monitor body temperature and other pertinent data of moose physiology? It has been known that wolf populations have the random $4000 GPS and monitoring devices around their neck as well as bear.

I then thought of what Carmine said about hunters not going into the woods to thin the herd. If a hunter were to practice intentional culling that deviated from hunt-stalk activities this would imply some sort of ownership. The only way one would have ownership of wild game in America is if they ran or worked a fenced game farm where domesticated wild stock were evaluated for benefits and losses financially. This isn’t hunting. It is farming hands down. Call a spade a spade I say.

Yes hunters may see the random wounded animal whereby putting the animal out of its misery. Hunting is based on opportunity and then you pick your target if you have more than one option.

Hunting and Conservation are two different skill sets that comingle depending on the overlap of need and the situation the two ideas are applied to.

If a hunter is using conservation as his springboard platform for argument and evidence of validating the details of the hunting act then maybe they need to sit in a deer stand and get their priorities straight. Hunting and conservation can be integrated into another entity as a whole but they tend to be separate concepts with different definitions and requirements. Conservation tends to walk the line of monitoring and sustaining wildlife where hunting rides the fence as partaking of.

As for hunters ideals of bloodlust not all hunters are created equal, have the same mindset, come from the same culture, or even have the same views of death. Subtracting the fact they actuallyl do hunt one could ponder whether they have any respect for others, themselves, or decorum in general.

Blood is blood. There are several schools of thought on blood and gore in the hunting realm. Some are very adamant about being comfortable with their bloodletting while not understanding or ridiculing a fellow man for weakness and inability to perceive certain violent acts as “normal acts of nature”. Violence again each other has become so prevalent and sensationalized in the media we cringe at seeing animals doing it to one another but on the other hand some sit in front of the TV during shark week glorying in the sight of Sharks tossing seals.  Other hunters do care about not forcing visual aids off on people that would not want to see them because when it comes to social media you never know when the random boob shot is coming. I have found after actually having an intelligent conversation with non-hunting buddies that I am actually okay with not showing them my personal photos of hunting outings. My aspect of hunting is to promote life more because death is eventual and not pretty. It’s not that I ignore death. Being enamored with death and shoving it in people’s faces is almost like assault to me. There are people that get off on other people being repulsed by blood, gore, and death. It gives them an ego boost I guess that they can handle it and someone else is too fragile. This behavior doesn’t make a hunter or person is strong by no means. It just means death is on that person to the point the air he breathes is death with its sickly sweet smell. These types court death with the false illusion of adventure. If something directly threatens your life as an endeavor, it is not adventure, that my friend is a death wish.

Sometimes ideals have to be tested as to their relevance. What seems distasteful might have a far reaching benefit if no other workable option exists to resolve problems. I enjoyed getting this pot load of gold out of a small excerpt.

Written by W Harley Bloodworth
~Courtesy of the AOFH~
 

Sources Cited:
Carmine, James. Hunting Philosophies for Everyone: In Search of Wildlife. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons (2010). pp 242. Print.

Hunting: The Poor and Entitled.

King Charlemagne

Remember this: In a person's life circumstances change. The pauper can become the rich and the rich can become the pauper. Hunting is hunting regardless.

The current atmosphere of hunting as a sport of either leisure or food gathering necessity has shined a pinpoint light on the availability of the hunting act on a landscape both private and public influenced by money, law, status and personal ownership.

In America anyone regardless of gender, ethnicity, or financial background can purchase a hunting license. Once you get that hunting license it is up to you whether you hunt public land, your own private land, or another private land owner’s. You can be a homeless vagrant with no job but if you can provide money for the license fee then you can hunt. Where you would get the gun remains to be seen unless you're going Rambo with a knife.

I have spoken to hunter's that are upset because they can't hunt wherever they want without permission from private land owners. There are also comments about public land not being enough. I have also be privy to conversations where a group of hunters or hunter complains that he is unable to go on 'dream hunts' like other more wealthy hunters. This problem of entitlement where a more wealthy hunter has better access to game and hunting conditions because the outfitter that provides the service dictates the price and the amount of luxury going into the itinerary. I assume on both hunters part no matter the amount of money they both work for it just the same: one just has more than the other.

The financially well-off hunter can travel at his leisure while sharing his exploits. Other hunters dream and envy over that person's life. The financially well-off hunter could just keep his bucks to himself and not help subsidize other peoples economy. On the other hand the poorer hunter can save his money and go on a trip of his own. To me its just a rock throwing contest where instead of sharing brothership in the hunt its coveting all the way. Money helps but its not everything.

I got to thinking about the History of Hunting where social cast systems came into play. I googled around just for fun. How could hunting be used as an element of social control?

The North Carolina Act of 1745 was used to push out people that depended on hunting all year long by getting them to move elsewhere, limited hunting to certain times of the year, and restricted practices such as fire-ring hunting and jack light hunting.

Fire-ring hunting used two men in the dark where they set a fire up to five to seven miles wide to run quarry to a smaller group of hunters while jack lighting was used by putting coals or a fire into a cast iron skillet then using it to shine off the eyes of animals.

Also the North Carolina Act of 1745 stated that if you didn't have a home or were jobless that you couldn't hunt. Hunters had to carry an affidavit they planted at least 500 corn hills. At that time depletion of game was a worry so I guess they figured if you're going to shoot them, give them something to eat or at least show you care.

In 1705 in Virginia, the House of Burgess rolled back the open areas to prohibit commoners from hunting on private land without permission. You were exempt if you owned more than six slaves at the time. This meant that wealth indicated if you could trespass on private property to hunt if you didn't have permission. I guess if you destroyed property they would take your slaves as payment (which has been attested to for other debts in that time period).

Of course with all things and starving people you have law breakers so to ensure no one was poaching the House of Burgess laid down a twenty shilling reward for each incidence of poaching that was turned in. I laughed and thought that was easy money seeing how you could just turn someone in.

I can only imagine what it was like in Europe.

I did find in a poem called the Rime of William where the writer penned his unhappiness at William the Conqueror’s idea to let the wild things of the forest run free. This goes back to aristocracy dictating who could hunt and what game would be hunt. I did think about it and to not take it literally because at that time I am sure there was a lot of starving people with poaching on their mind. At the same time maybe King William saw a decrease in wildlife and wanted it controlled. Wars will do a lot to a landscape while making the animals on it disappear to feed soldiers. Agriculture was going on but it made you wonder why they were going after the wildlife if not to enjoy the hunt themselves as serfs. Who knows?

Whether or not this is going to be a problem as hunting areas get smaller or just the competition to get into a landscape to hunt is pursued through hunting tags is yet to be seen. What if people started to argue they didn't feel the tagging system was right because it only allowed so many people to go. What if they argued it was rigged to only cater to certain people?

Now everyone has a camera where they are filming their hunts. Everyone wants to be the expert because that gives them top ranking. With all this fighting over the best 'piece of meat' did hunters stop enjoying themselves?

Would it be better to be a little nobody that enjoys the hunt for themselves without sharing it with the world on some little speck of land in the realm of obscurity than to not enjoy hunting at all?

Written by W Harley Bloodworth

~Courtesy of the AOFH~