Who Came Up With that Phrase?

Remember this: Form a better argument.

I have read a lot of articles by celebrity hunters, and seen posts that state, “hunting is conservation”.

I really wanted to be a thoughtful consumer when approaching this. I argue there is a hunting propaganda machine out there with a public relations department circulating this phrase-as an outdoors consumer-I should really give this some thought. For anyone reading this and seeing this type of thing circulating-maybe you should give it a second glance as well. I’m not saying act, but it is your outdoor sports, too.

Conservation is a multi-disciplinary science filled with many subdivisions-all based in science, such as wildlife, genetics, ecology, and biological. These terms can be applied to the land, air and sea as substrates in which the act of hunting takes its form. Hunting is not one of those. There are people that will suggest it as a fact.

Hunting is used as the action word here. I will stay on point with it. Given this, people who utilize the outdoors for sport can advertise “fishing is conservation”, but it’s not as catchy, or carries itself like hunting.

Hunting has become a power word. Unfortunately, those wielding it in the public as role models didn’t listen to Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben. Power words bring great responsibility.

Unfortunately, that power word is only as crucial as the one wielding it. Do not misuse your powers.

Misuse is what I see.

Hunting is an act generated from hunters, who go out and use their skills to garner a living thing and render it dead for food, or catch and release for pleasure.

Hunting and Conservation can be interchangeable tools for scientific use. Never be confused the two terms are one and the same. Someone may try to morph the two words together to further some poorly laid argument to support the argument itself-don’t be fooled.

Hunters managing an area can have a scientific study performed to tell them what Conservation plan would be best suited to build on the area they already have for maximum output and upkeep for the sake of their hunting activities. Without the quarry, the hunting act is empty.

Hunters can be conservationists. One day they can hunt, the next day they can plow their field to reseed for quail populations.

Now that I have said this, some nut somewhere is going to get his brief ready on why they need to make “Conservation Hunting” a scientific stand-alone. This is not comparable to Conservation Genetics.

People don’t hunt-technology does that for them, or so it seems.

One truth here is hunting itself becomes a monitoring data point in scientific study to issue information over a given species on a landscape. It may give information on the overall general health of the area and its inhabitants, but not the sole data point.

In a scientific study, hunting as an act is not the center of the universe-even though online posts would make it seem so.

This is not an opinion-it is a scientific fact.

If you are privy of the past and present scientific research in the ecological, biological, and natural resources of conservation, the reader discovers and understands that the act of hunting is a data point to be studied to determine what effect that particular act has on the outcome of the study groups from a list of chosen data points to be studied.

Just to exhibit layman data points in a domestic area, I give you the horse.

I will use the concept of horses in a field. The horse owner already knows they need a certain amount of acreage per horse (data point 1) and a water supply (data point 2). Horses drink about 1 gallon per 100 pounds of body weight.  Increase this by four times during the hot season (data point 3), hard work (data point 4), lactation (data point 5), and extra dry roughage consumed depending on winter or spring (data point 6). A 1000 pound horse will consume and waste three tons on average of forage dry matter during a 6 month grazing season.

The horse owner also has to take into consideration the carrying capacity of any pasture depending on soil type, soil fertility, drainage conditions, rainfall, time of year, and type of forage species present. Data point, data point, data point. Hunting can become a data point when a wayward hunter shoots into a field killing one of the horse specimens in the field. Those data points have to be noted.

Here you have a slow breeder living in domestication that is affected by its biological needs and size, and the environment it lives in. One horse in a field has its own unique set of data points to consider for its well-being and upkeep. You have to have a forage, water, and grazing plan with subsequently blocking of select areas for plants to grow and rotate the horse out for proper grazing.

Now apply that to wildlife in large expanses with human habitation living on the boundary. Somewhere there is a conservation plan for exactly how many wildebeest need to be living in a given area depending upon migration. Grazing animals living in a given area over a period of time can graze themselves right out of food without exception to the fact the weather patterns effect on forage.

An elephant can eat 200-600 pounds of food a day and drink up to 50 gallons of water a day. Now apply the horse theory to an elephant but use a conservation plan based in science.

Here you have a slow breeder, living in the wild affected by its biological needs, size, and the environment it lives in. 

Regular people living their lives do not think in terms of the needs of the animal, the ecosystem or what goes into the upkeep or management. They only know it is wrong for the animal to die at the hands of a hunter.

I have read plenty of scientific research where the data point of hunting was carefully followed to determine, with regards to that particular research, that hunting had a positive effect on the conservation of species in that given area and study. As a tool, in a given area, using a conservation plan implementing hunting as a data point, hunting can have a positive influence overall when not misused.

That is not an opinion-it has been studied and determined valid under given limits.

We can use the human animal here as an example, such as the elephant and horse. Syrian refugees have to have food, water, and a location. Someone has to come up with a plan to manage these immigrants. Apply the horse model to immigrants and their needs.

You really have to look deeper into the mud puddle past your reflection-and that mud hole goes deep.

When the hunter considers the great expansive of some parts of North and South America, Africa, Canada, and the Mongol grasslands, with huge herds of a variety of wildlife in need of a conservation plan, that are surrounded eventually by human habitation, there is a lot of mathematical application to biological work to help form a plan of management to keep those areas functioning at an acceptable level. This is not even considering the ecological impact of the land and ecosystems via other variables.

The Earth is big. It is a challenge given problems like ocean acidification. That is a whole different set of problems to talk about. Yikes! I would stay under that oak tree at the river with all this doom and gloom.

A fact is hunters do contribute a lot of money. Don't let money be your only supportive argument. Let’s own that as a fact. Hunters don’t need to argue to space that hunting is conservation when it is not. Hunter money does support a lot of scientific research and conservation effort. We shouldn’t expect gratitude from non-hunters abhorred to hunting. Just keep doing what you’re doing, don’t take more than you can use or need, and do as much work as you need to sustain the populations and habitats for future generations.

Be proud of that.

Don’t expend energy on fighting. Spend more time on contributing to organizations willing to be truthful and not manipulative in the way it directs its members to promote the outdoor sports.

If you voice your opinion, and you feel confident your stance is valid, stand your ground. If you find a person who makes more sense-maybe you should listen. Give it a second or third thought.

“Hunting is conservation” begins to look like a poor choice of words. If someone wanted to give the term hunting a home, it would be stashed amongst natural resource conservation. Don’t believe me? Look at that survey from the local Department of Natural Resources and ask yourself, “Why do they want me to send in how many turkeys I’ve seen?”  Data point for an impromptu scientific study using citizen science to give numbers because of lack of state funding. Why do you think the Department of Natural Resources controls the legalities of hunting, your permits, boats, public access areas, and wildlife managed areas?

Other than that, someone is trying to force a golden egg out the back end of a goose that is not laying. Cramming it down the throats of hunters is not going to produce a golden egg either.

Broken down as a truth, in the greater scheme of things, hunting is rendered as a scientific variable.

This is an example of a report where hunting is a variable or mode of removal to gain samples for an ecological study-hence it being a variable in a scientific research study.

You will read the term “offtake” as “a number of individuals removed from the environment through hunting or harvesting by humans”. 

See article below (circa 2015):

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss3/art40/

This article discusses deforestation and hunting pressure of the Pano Indians in the Amazon (circa 2016). Review the section entitled, "Assessing wildlife status using hunting data":

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art3/

The next step on the public relations ladder is advertising “hunting is science”.

Hunting is not Conservation.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

Saiga: The Spectre of Absence

Remember this: We ask the same question, over and over, to the same end.

I’ve been keeping my eye on this Saiga mass die-off. By reports, since mid-May, Saiga have been dying off. The current geography dot on our Map of Mysterious Deaths is Kazakhstan.

I was reading an article in Nature Magazine entitled, “Mysterious die-off sparks race to save Saiga antelope”, by Henry Nicholls. I have thoughts on the subject. The article reported a quote per Richard Kock, veterinarian, “of 100% mortality.” These dying herds were 300 kilometers apart. There have been Saiga die-off noted in the past. On one hand, people could dismiss this as another event, or should there be more concern?

By the article, it is suggested the causative agent is not a directly transmitted disease, but possibly a polymicrobial disease.

When you think of the ways an animal can get sick, the likely suspects are there.

Suspect #1 Ingestion

Suspect #2 Inhalation

Suspect #3 Surface or Sexual Contact

Suspect #4 We shall call it “?”

The list goes on….

Polymicrobial diseases are marked, clinically and pathologically of, the presence of more than one species of microorganism. 

Here you might have a condition of the Saiga, either becoming the petri dish of its own death or coming in contact with the murderous suspect.

The questions are, when did the Saiga run afoul of the causative agent that facilitated mass deaths in a population? Why did no one collect data from previous die-offs to compare variables?

Suspect #1: Polymicrobial disease

Suspect #2: Environmental factors

Suspect #3: ALIENS!

Suspect #4: the Government!

Suspect #5 the Cigarette Smoking Man

In the no-so-far-away past, the suspects were rural poverty facilitating hunting and poaching, Chinese markets demand for meat and horns, and war-mongering endeavors.

I began to think the Saiga could become a ghost species. A ghost species is an animal that is believed to have a large population number. In reality the number falls, and every route used to save the species from extirpation is a failure. No matter what, it is going to become extinct. 

Considering the large population number of the Saiga, in a short period of time, that massive number can be rendered down to zero, in record time. If it is an environmental factor, and a selected group of animals are not moved to another location to thrive, one day, all of them could be gone, in one fatal swoop. It makes you wonder when the conditions are going to be right for the mass death of human beings, excluding biological warfare.

I have seen hunters online, flaunting the great number of species that can be hunted, yet given the right condition, something as small an unassuming as a bacteria or virus, can become one of the biggest killers without even loading a gun. I reflect on scientists chirping, “Humans as Super Predator”. Somewhere out there, a germ is laughing in its pants at how ridiculous this idea is. On the back of its little germ car, there are stickers that reads, “Ebola on board”, “Black Plague, We Are Still Here” and “The Grateful Dead”.

The more important perspective or lesson here is realizing large herds of animals can be decimated down to endangered numbers or zero members fairly quickly given the facilitator of destruction.

We take for granted that Saiga will always be there. We take for granted that a lot of things will be there tomorrow, wherever they are. A massive die-off illustrates you are not promised anything. Saiga die-off illustrates the need for a more prudent inspection and monitoring of life on Earth and how human behavior is affecting human and non-human life.

If you have ever studied immunology or microbiology, you come to realize that there are certain conditions that only have to vary a little or a lot, before you can have a mass growth of some bacteria, virus, or germ. This could be in a petri dish. All it takes is the right conditions. 

The worrisome part is the reality of a vast landscape with no boundaries, other than a migrating beast, where something can be incubating inside the body or outside in the ecosystem, and move from place to place, infecting or not infecting as it goes. There are cases of germs, viruses, and bacteria zombifying organisms to do their bidding for survival.

The things you find.

This is probably unrelated but I found one literature source that reported former Soviet biological weapons facilities in Kazakhstan. I wondered if something is perpetuating from these facilities. This information was noted from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Moneterey Institute of International Studies, 1999. It seemed there was mass death of fish and animals in those areas. They were moving people out of these areas. It is what it is. You never know but rule that variable out.

As far as the final reports on the causative agent of Saiga death during this massive die-off, I will wait to see what the scientists uncover.

This illustrates the connectedness of humans to animals. What if you purchased your Elk hunting license, then the first week of hunting, was faced with reports of a massive Elk die-off. Would that freak you out? What if during a Great Migration, animals fell in their tracks along a wildlife corridor, with everyone snapping photographs? Would this make a hunting participant learn not to take a hunted animal for granted, or would you just move on to the next?

Another perspective would be the idea that life is moving forward in time, on a branched timeline. As we watch more animals become extinct, eventually humans will go the same route. How can one not feel their mortality, when we watch species disappear, one after another?

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Conservation: Nature's Sake or Human Benefit

Remember this: Humans have never stood outside of Nature. Humans contribute equal portions of good and evil.

I read this article called, "The Battle for the Soul of Conservation Science", written by Keith Kloor. Read between the lines, man,read between the lines.

I was aghast at the behavior of papered, intelligent beings living in Ivory Towers. I took a couple of drags off my Capri Sun, straw hanging in my mouth, as I quietly mouthed, What the F*#K?

Is this what people do when they get degrees? Einstein might be rolling in his grave at the thought the science community has now transversed social media with its twitter-like wars in those hallowed halls of academia. The sad thing in this article, two prominent scientists exhibited a poor role-modeling example to young up and coming ecologists.

There are allegations that this debating system has caused a lot of usurping of productive discourse, funding, progress, and not to mention the breakdown of mutual colleagues ability to work on a problem to solution.

My input on this is in regards for Nature's sake or human benefit is this: Humans live in Nature, even if it is inside the buildings of industry. We interact as a part of the biome Earth. We are not floating outside in dark space, watching everything like a God. As a consumer and producer of by-products, humans have to benefit to exist, otherwise we die in less than dignified ways. There is a mutual relationship between Nature and humanity that exists, even if it is imbalanced by human actions and endeavors. Humans are a part of the narrative, even when we write upon Nature's ways. Research is done in parts and not a whole. Research should start taking into consideration all the variables that are reasonable to the problems and solutions.

The first great question was: How useful is science and the results when applied. I wanted them to come down to my woods and go for a boat ride or a walk. Sounds like they need some realism in their lives.

I can concur with Karieiva to include the complete ecosystem of the world in the conservation conversation. There are two many times when science is locked into a location designated as a national park, protected wilderness area, wetlands, or refuge. 

That comes to my point on several readings where I have seen it stated in scientific assumption that some variable was not given appropriate consideration in its role as a variable in the overall scientific study. Sometimes this lack of consideration, determines whether or not a variable should be examined. The problem arises when this variable should have been considered but the outcome of the study falls on its face, temporarily or completely.

Are views on Nature and how to protect it, narrowed from a scientific perspective? 

I interject here another scenario, has the rift between the common man, scientists, hunters, and government become such a vast chasm that in order to work together, there has to be a separation of human and their chosen conservation acts?

Scientist want to save. Hunters want to save. Animal rights activists want to save. Government wants others to do the work while doling out the funds. Yet, no one wants to work together.

No surprise there on why the world is in the state it is in.

Another question was: How do Earthlings best preserve the last vestiges of the natural world on a domesticated planet?

That is right Earthling. You are living on a domesticated planet and someone finally said it.

This one scientist, Soule, wants to save Nature from humanity. In his arc, humanity stands outside as an enemy instead of as an acting part of the circus of Life. I have indicated this thought process in other writings. Humanity is separated from Nature by his count it would seem. This is flawed because of his exclusion clause. In his spec, the things in Nature only have value. Man has no value, much like the Dallas's Safari Club going into Africa to indicate the wildlife has value, not the people so much. Or, so it goes.

The other scientist, Karievia, is tired of the gloom and doom of reported results.

A truth here is: Nature and its contents are under seige by the workings of Man. Yet, humanity is working on correcting that problem. At least, we will go down trying.


Why is it such a problem to call for new approaches in science? That is what science is for; approaching problems from some questionable and unquestionable directions to get to the answers.

Kareiva and Michelle Marvier wrote an article where humanity was included in the conservation dialogue. Finally, humanity is included. Conservation as a nature-centric enterprise has a lot of humans running around in it, once you start considering how hunters and citizens have been saying all that they have contributed. Why not consider that variable in the overall plan?

Why is there a problem when someone states, "Houston, we have a problem?" 

This article is an example of how regular people leave it up to academia to answer the problems of the world, yet scientists are working with latent, outdated ideologies and practices. The world changes. The mentality of the scientists needs to be ever-evolving and open to things that could solve problems, instead of holding onto Linus's blanket with their fingers in their mouths. 

This is why one must be pro-active and read what these people are up to on your dime. It is your world, too.

I thought the picture I provided did the article justice. Many people fighting it out and no one getting the message. Someone should rethink bringing assumptions to a knife fight, that is in dire need of some cold, hard, factual depositions. Bring the science and not the fear.

I have no control over the homo-erotic nature of the painting. You're welcome.


Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore

Here is the article. There is more. Enjoy.

http://issues.org/31-2/kloor/

The Viable Connection

Remember this: It takes more than a plane ticket and two weeks in the bush to form a connection to an animal, unless it is all in your head.

Two days ago, I attended a one-on-one workshop. The facilitator gave me some worksheets with questions to answer. As I sat reading over the questions, I was trying to determine a short answer for them. My mind drew a blank. It was things I knew. Over the course of the workshop, I finally just looked at the facilitator and say, “I am going to be honest with you. I should know the answers to these questions, but I am having a problem articulating how I should reply.”

Here it is: When replying to debate and reactionary commentary, the person making the statement really needs to stop, drop, and roll before answering to avoid the back and forth of confused rebuttals and remarks.

I reread my pieces to make sure I might not make sense. Rethinking your position will not hurt you, especially when you have several sources of influence bearing down on you. Lead yourself.

In the commentaries of Big Game hunters defending their stance on hunting exotic animals, you will hear the hunter make a reply about the true connection or intimacy they have with the downed beast. This is from that particular hunter’s mentality.

Is this a true connection (mutual sharing of self through intimacy), a rapport (trust and respect), or is it propaganda hogwash to excuse their behavior and endeavors as relevant? Is the hunter convincing self, what they are doing is okay, in such a short time frame?

I zoomed in. This might be the possible reason this doesn’t fly when trying to explain hunter-hunted mentality. If you received funny looks and rude comments, this might be why.

If you live in America, get on a plan to Africa, then spend two weeks in the bush, and finally shoot an animal, does this constitute a long enough period to form a true connection?

I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. You are more likely to build a connection with the people you are being guided by or hunting with. When it comes to the animal, it is not aware of you. This causes a one-sided event on the part of the hunter’s perspective. The hunter believes there is a concrete connection between hunter-hunted. This is not real.

Consider the short period of time and zero interaction between hunter-hunted. One can consider this a delusion on the part of the hunter. The only time you will get intimate with the hunted animal is after it is dead, and you are field dressing it.

Pseudo-rivalry that exists in the mind of the hunter could fuel this erroneous belief there is a connection, but there is not. This pseudo-rivalry is not known to the beast. The animal may instinctual realize something is stalking it. Evolution has hardwired this instinct.

Where intimacy is concerned, when you are yards away from the hunted, there can be no sense of it. That is what people tell themselves to make it alright. The hunter is not forming a friendship with the hunted. As far as a close familiarity, that is weak tea compared to a hunter that has been studying and questing after an animal for ten years, to the point the hunter decides chasing the animal is enough, then lets it go. That is forming mutual respect for your quarry. If the quarry is crafty enough to out maneuver you, you let it go. Someone else might take the animal down, but not at the expense of your ethics and mores.

There is some romanticizing of the idea of big game hunting on the African continent. There are people who will sale this idea to those willing to buy into a dream. It is pretentious.

A long term, true connection would exist where a human cares for an animal in such a way, that trust is built between the behavior of animal and human. You will find such a thing with abused or untrained animals undergoing long or short-term interaction with their human. These connections evolve into human-animal relationships and bonds. The animal possibly could have a prolonged life under the care of the human. The animal will even come to accept the human into the pack or group, and protect or defend the human. There will be attempts at communication or the human will just know what is going on based on the animal’s behavior.

You will not find this in the hunting experience. There is no relationship, no trust; no connection because the animal is short lived due to its eventual death at the hands of the hunter.

Sometimes you will hear a hunter say, “I love that animal more than you will ever know.” It is not the individual animal but the concept of the breed in particular. The concept of the deer represents food, sustenance, primal desire to stalk and hunt to be as a participating member of an ecosystem. You are already a part of the cycle but the animal draws you further in.

This might be the intimacy spoken of; being more in the life cycle and a part of it, but not to a destructive degree to the overall system or the creatures that share space with you.

Humans are viewed as separate, like an interloping deity; are outside the system, disconnected to its parts.

We form true connections with people because we share camaraderie in the hunt, learn about their way of life and form long-term relationships with those we come to know. 

True connections are formed with immediate pets and animals we come to know over a period of time, where our emotional attachment takes precedence.  

It is hard to believe that a person can form a true connection or intimacy with an animal as an individual, in less than two weeks without learning any of the long term nuances of the hunted.

It is the equivalent of hunting and terminating a stranger. The animal does not know you, and you really knew nothing about it.

Be honest. Honesty does work.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth

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

Unknown Culprit and their Cotton Balls of Yuck

Remember this: Pay attention to everything. Don't touch that tainted cotton ball. It could be covered with something you don't want.

I ran amuck on a Wildlife Managed area for a couple of hours. I was bored. I asked the dog did she want to go for a ride. We clamored up in the vehicle and mozied on down to the river. After seeing many a thing, I drove home while the dog slept. Figures...

I decided to cut the grass in the woods. I care for this small acreage, which has turned into a rather nice habitat. It has a water source and lots of plants. There is millet and other plants there for the wild birds, quail, and deer. I clean the paths and make soft edges. I provide bird houses in the form of gourds, sugar boards, and whatever else I can put out. Sometimes, I see this one turkey that skulks around on his stomach like Count Turkula. That is the only turkey I have ever seen that will stalk the person instead of you stalking him.

I will say, I was ecstatic that I observed some bobwhite quail tooling around down there. Big win because you don't see them often.

On my way down to the woods, I was looking at the high grass on the edge of the horse pasture (see above photo), which is now filled with drying corn stalks. I looked over and saw some cotton balls pinned to the grass. I thought, “What is this now? It is not even September. Someone is already doing naughty stuff.” Looked like a case of trespassing and questionable behavior.

I called my dad. He didn't know anything about it. I broke one off without touching the pen. It looked like someone put something yellow on it, even though it was out in rain. There was no smell either. I have no idea how long it has been there. From the stain, maybe a week. It kind of grossed me out that it might be human body fluids, but I hoped it was something else.

I guess someone is either baiting deer to come to that corner of the fence now, or it is something to run them off. Everything is dry as a bone. There is no gardens in the area. There is soybeans, but the deer can walk out from anywhere to eat them. I can't imagine why Unknown Culprit would be putting cotton balls in my dad's field. The neighbor was watching me. I proceeded to cut the grass.

Last deer season, I did not hunt. I watched everyone else to see what was going on. I know what the culprits are doing. I am going to have to walk around looking for cotton balls or tampons around this property that has been laced with God knows what.

Now that I have clothes pins, I should have them fingerprinted.

People are just spiteful and bored these days. Go cook some bacon, Man, if you want to make bad-good choices. Watch Days of Our Lives if you want drama. 

Here I am working on a habitat for things to live in and some evil person is trying to undermine my endeavor. I shake my head at this. When I consider the world at large these days, I am not surprised. 

It is July and August will be next month. Now would be a good time to do deer stand maintenance. You might would also start looking around to see if someone is doing things on your property they shouldn't. If someone is baiting deer in July, they have a serious problem. Where is the game warden when you need one.

I guess it is time someone goes to jail....can't say I didn't warn them.

Written by: Angelia Y Larrimore, Grossed Out by Yucky Cotton Balls.

Government Cheese and Hunting Fees

Remember this: Starve and die...or look for options.

Many people do not take part in recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, and camping due to lack of funds. Meaningful experiences fall to the wayside due to lack of connections, mentoring, time, and desire.

I try not to belittle or look down on another person's life without some reflection on that person. I do give people the benefit of the doubt. I would expect the same in turn. I don't know their life or what they have been through. When I see someone raging against the machine, I try not to get mixed up in the foray of emotions that causes one to lose the ability to see through bullshit. Neither do I desire to look down on such individuals, who feels strongly about their convictions. Their experiences are vastly different. Yet considered no less or more important than my own.

I try to scratch out people that think they see a weak spot and try to pick at the scab. For those I say, “Keep picking. You are going to get something you will never see coming.” Spiteful people exist due to boredom and enjoying the thought of hurting someone else. Those weeds eventually go the way of all things when come uppance arrives at their door.

I began thinking about regular people, when faced with some life disaster, needing to provide for their loved ones with whatever option is available at the time. The sad reality is there are people that will not help people in need. They see them as capable. This is true. The crux of this problem is: you can have a capable person that can do but that person is not given any opportunities for whatever reason. Generating opportunities sometimes fail because of lack of funding or interest from the general public. There are a lot of variables here. You could see the person doing a lot but not gaining any ground. Truth be told, everyone is fighting. Everyone has it hard. Why are we making life even harder?

There again, enter Life's Purposes, where one individual is suffering and going through a lot. They pass on the knowledge and the details of the situation to help others through and steer them clear from danger. Consider it a cosmic message transfer of sorts. The sender need only recognize the message through awareness and pass it on to the cosmic pools of the world until it drifts to the ones needing it.

I had a brief conversation with someone. Issues arose but I didn't feel predisposed to vomiting up my life disasters and pollute up someone with my problems. I consider it not vandalizing someone else's wall with my paint when they just painted their wall blank. It is a choice of mine not to dump my trash in the lake of another unless they intentionally are willing to help me clean up my mess. Most people are not that charitable.

It is always up to you and your choices; good or bad.

There are internet users on social media who feel strongly against public assistance aka Welfare. Everyone's opinions and feelings are warranted. To improve a system both negative and positive feedback is needed to correct overall service success.

After looking at online posts about Food Stamps and EBT cards, I removed myself from the resentment I viewed. Without the other person's knowledge of my use of it, I didn't want to be sensitive to the conversation someone else was posting. It's water down my back, even though some people wield it like a leather strap. Some people are like that. They don't realize how they could be hurting someone else. The person has an issue themselves. I tried to see where hunting fit into this picture. After all, it is a source of food.

To my knowledge in my great state of South Carolina, food stamps and hunting/fishing licenses do not overlap with one another. These two services are completely distinct and separate. I lean more toward the two not, because of muddying up the waters of services.

Let us look at the EBT/SNAP service.

There are probably people utilizing monetary contributions from family and friends to buy hunting and fishing licenses. This kinda thing has to be turned in to social service. They want to know ever dime that passes through your hand from whatever source it comes from. Hunting and fishing's purpose in this is to supplement the lack of food not covered by how much is allocated to your EBT card. It exists merely as a crutch to get you over a hump in your life, given that hump doesn't span years. Sadly, it does.

I speak from experience.

In my instance, I was no longer employed at a decent paying job after I broke my wrist from an on-the-job dog attack. I applied for public assistance but was turned down. I still posessed current pay stubs but had already paid my bills. My funds were at zero. I had a child to feed. I went to my dad's, besides myself. He was sitting on the swing outside. I told him what kind of pickle I was in. I just had the sutures removed from my hand and faced a lot of physical therapy. He pointed to the truck and said, “Get the gun out and shoot a deer.” He gave me the money to go buy a hunting license. You soon find you don't need to kill more than three to keep you in the protein. My nerves were so bad at that time due to other things. Deer meat was the only thing I could eat and hold down, meat wise. I grew some hybrid collards and mustard then called it a meal.

Here I interject, in life you go on the idea that everything will work itself out. You don't foresee a lot of disruptive life issues and tragedies that come your way. Neither should you be beat up for it by others who judge and look down on you in a dehumanizing way. This can come from the very workers you go to while apply for a service and from people in better life positions. The worry for them is absent. They forget every minute is one step to being in the position of the person they frown down upon.

One of my friends rented houses. She came by one day and told me she had two men renting her houses. One had a job but wouldn't pay his rent, yet could buy a stereo system. The other had a child, paid his rent but didn't have anything left over for food. She told me how bad she felt about it but had to take the rent anyway. Her bills didn't stop either. I didn't say anything to her. I got a box, walked over to my deep freeze and started putting food in it. I told her, “Give that to the one that pays his rent and has a kid.” This guy was just above the margin given by Social Services that didn't approve him. We call it scraping the barrel here.

I thought about the amount that is given on an EBT card. Let us set up a scenario. Here is a working example. The amount given to a woman and child with absolutely no income could be $357.00. Divide this by 30 days and allocate $11.90 per day per two people. Divide this by 2 people and you have a final amount of $5.95 day/person. Now subtract the amount of a 12 oz can of Chicken of the Sea, at full price, from this amount and see what you have left over. The protein on the can says 11g. Look up what your protein requirements are for the day. Figure it out...

Now keep in mind when you use the $5.95 for yourself, you look at the can to see what the label says the protein amount is. Otherwise, you could be wasting $5.95 on sugar and crap food. We wonder why food that is good for us is so costly and you can't pay for it.

When you consider a person pays into a system over the course of their life, while having a life disruption at some point, should not be begrudged using a service provide they helped subsidize it. Nor is it right to look down on them and set the scene to insinuate they are a loser all of a sudden. It reminds me of being in a tribe. You break your leg on a hunt. You can no longer hunt so the other members of the tribe drag you to the edge of the village and dump you there. You are no longer of use to them or yourself. The reality is you are just sidelined until you heal. This doesn't mean you have no value. It is a case of wrong tribe with bad mentality.

I remember reading an account where a certain North American tribe would have a meeting then go into the tent of an elderly person and choke them to death. One account was by a elder that overheard what was about to happen to him. He dragged himself out his lodging and into the woods. He subsisted on berries and bark for a while until he could walk a little. He meandered to a local tribe of different affiliation who cared for him until he was well. All it took was care and compassion. This man did not have to die at the hands of others who considered him useless and a burden.

I recently looked at the application for EBT. On it were questions such as: Have you used EBT to purchase guns and ammunition, have you sold EBT for recreational drugs, etc. I just stared at it an thought, “Do you really expect people to answer this? They would be admitting to a crime?” Again, maybe the person is mentally challenged and answers these questions. Stranger things can happen.

There is the issue of requiring people to give a urine test as a part of the process to be approved for EBT. The problem with this is you have to prove the person did sell EBT funds for drugs. They could have traded sex for drugs. You never know. Of course, this could be a good and bad thing. The requirement might be to get into a drug rehabilitation group. This could incur even more cost at someone's expense. Who would pay for that? Unfortunately, it becomes a sickness that branches out even further. No one knows how deep it can go but it keeps going. It is a symptom of social-psychological disease. The wrong thought can lead you into all kind of mischief.

There are people abusing the service, either intentionally or for lack of education on what they should be choosing. I have seen people loading up grocery carts with every kind of processed food instead of the nutritionally necessary items. The baby sits in the slot at the handles with all this junk a la carte behind them. Eventually the bad choices lead to childhood and parental obesity. On it goes, the degrading human condition. One bad decision right after another. Why is this I ask? Maybe no one taught them better, laziness, it is just convenient to not use brain cells, and lack of education? Who knows what is going on in peoples heads at the time?

Where does hunting and fishing enter into the picture?

Thinking on hunting and fishing, it is costly. A South Carolina salt and freshwater fishing license is $20. This might be the best route. You can fish off the hill. If you hang around a boat landing long enough, you could make a friend that would take you out for thirty minutes on the water. This promotes social interaction. People tend to talk more when relaxed and no menace.

A basic hunting license is around $10. If you get the hunting/fishing combination license you save $5.00. To get the migratory bird with stamp and ability to hunt Wildlife Managed areas the fee could be up to $65-$70. This is due to contributing to conservation efforts in our state, which is a must. No wild game, there goes your alternative food source option.

Jobless, destitute people can't afford this. You can't pay, you don't play. The option of using hunting and fishing as a food source goes out the window unless you find charity in someone who is compassionate enough to give you a hand out. The only light in the dark here is cane pole fishing without an eye. You can still attempt to pull a fish from the river.

How does this figure for dirt poor people who could hunt for their food but not afford the fees? If a person loses the ability to realize they can do for themselves because of an obstacle placed before them with a penalization system, how can they proceed? What happens when this individual is placed in a position to make a poor decision merely because the choice of starve or break a law and go to jail is now in the option choices? What if this person has no one else to help them supplement food sources? Is there a service in conjunction with the Department or Natural Resources and the EBT/SNAP program to work together to get those individuals out in the field to give them a sense of empowerment as capable individuals who can provide for themselves and others. This could lead to improvement of self-image and give impoverished peoples the determination or encouragement to move past their perceived ideals of self-poverty to a more self-sufficient human being. Then teach them to pass this mentality on to others who seeming fall behind or down in the mud.

Should these two entities not mix? Is there the possibility of a service being generated separate from the two, yet have the ability to co-mingle as a prototype as an answer to part of the problem?

You can see how questions really start generating themselves. When you have more questions than answers to a growing issue there exist a potential problem. This doesn't mean there are no solutions. It is the tact one goes about apply solutions for favorable outcomes.

Charity in recreational sports, governmental programs, and our daily lives is necessary. Individuals exist in the world that are dependent due to disability, somewhat helpless children, the mentally-ill, self-decided leeches on society, and capable adults that get assaulted by the responsibility of just being alive then falling pray to happenstance. You also have big talkers that think nothing will ever happen to them. 

Yet the cosmic finger points at you on this given day and says, “Kneel. Remember the dirt you come from for you shall return to it; kicking, screaming, or relieved this life is over.” Again you might be one of the lucky ones that never see a tear shed in their life and die with a smile on your face. The problem with this is: When asked, what did you do for others in your time on Earth? What could you possibility have to say for yourself?

These are just some of the things I was pondering on. I could go into a long treatise of novella proportion. I only want to make you think. There are people that just upon reading this piece would get mad as a wet-setting hen at the mere thought. To those people I only ask: Think about it in a new way. Doing for someone else very well might make you have a better outlook on others and yourself.

Maybe we rely to much on government to guide us or empower the public to do for themselves and others. There are billions of people on this planet. Is it so hard to turn to the person beside you and say, “Can I help you in some way? Relieve your suffering and toil?” Do we have to wait on a government handout when there are so many people willing to help those that want to help themselves? Could this ever become a real thing? Is it just for those few that have compassion and awareness to the suffering of other things great and small? Why are there so few of those kinds of people? Or are people not brave enough to recognize that thing within themselves that manifest the good the world bore you out the Earth to exist for the sake of existing?

Being poor and dying is not the way a living creature should part his life. Neither is it noble to make someone's last dying thought be from Langston Hughes's poem “Sympathy” rethought....I didn't even have a crust of bread or a corner to weep in.

Written by: W Harley Bloodworth