Just like Heaven: A Supernatural Accord

 Remember this: Past life memories transition into a supernatural accord.

Not to long ago, I am having a conversation with my partner-in-crime. This conversation is based around ruminations I am having that he is listening to. It is more like a conversation with myself and he is just present to hear. Out of nowhere he says to me, "I know why you love Nature so much."

I ask him, "What do you mean?"

He responds, "It reminds you of Heaven. Somehow you remember heaven, but you don't realize that is what it is."

I thought about it and decided maybe he is right. I sat with this thought. I am still sitting with this thought; then to realize you are aggressively protective of Nature, but simultaneously spiritual.

This is a can of worms.

This supernatural accord that comes from possible past life memories are exhibited when an individual's recollection of a previous existence links to a binding metaphysical pact, spiritual contract, or cosmic law that bridges past and present realities.

At this point, we could argue that over the years from simple cell to human, as DNA kind of falls off, some of us are left with those fragments of DNA that remember to protect and nurture, and there are those that don't.

The supporting argument is the running thought about this supernatural accord that is past down verbally, sacred text parabling the concept, entrenched in governmental considerations for its people, and undoubtedly an individualistic spark in the human soul. I am sure there are other ways this has trickled down through the centuries. 

Trauma is a great re-enforcement. The sandcastle theory is a good place to start. You have a child out on a beach. The child builds a beautiful sandcastle. On one hand the ocean waves come and over time keep beating down this child's effort. The other option is another individual comes along and out of spite, kicks it down. 

Its the ability to feel the intention from the acts and motives of the individual that makes all the difference. The ocean is the ocean. We accept what it will do.

Image by Md Habib

The kicking of the sandcastle is those select few humans that decide and carry through with the destruction of all things great and good that we were entrusted with to do stewardship towards; everything in our reality. 

This idea of stewardship should be one of cultivation and not exploitation of the Natural world.

Where is this indicated? The Bible, the Quran, Indigenous belief, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. 

You can't escape the supernatural accord. With that being said, you will not escape the consequences for not doing that one job the supernatural gave you. Stares.

Atheists even follow this supernatural accord and they worship no god.

These are some passages from Horace Bushnell you can talk about over the campfire with your buddies out in the bush.

"Instead of regarding the supernatural as that which acts on the chain of cause and effect in nature from without the chain, and adhering to that sense of the term, we use it, very commonly, in a kind of ghostly, marveling sense, as if relating to some apparition, or visional wonder, or it may be to some desultory, unsystematizable action, whether of angels or of God. Such uses of the word are permissible enough by dictionary laws, but they make the word an offense to all who are any way inclined to the rationalizing habit. On the other hand, there are many who claim to be acknowledged as adherents of a supernatural faith, with as little definite understanding. Believing in a God superior to nature, acting from behind and through her laws, they suppose that they are of course, to be classed as believers in a supernatural being and religion.(Bushnell 29-30)

"It is no longer necessary to go hunting after marvels, apparitions, suspensions of the laws of nature, to find the supernatural; it meets us in what is least transcendent and most familiar, even in ourselves. In ourselves we discover a tier of existences that are above nature and in all their most ordinary actions, are doing their will upon it. The very idea of our personality is that a being not under the law of cause and effect, a being supernatural." (Bushnell 31)

"Thus, nature, for example, never made a pistol, or gunpowder, or pulled a trigger; all which being done, or procured to be done, by the criminal, in his act of murder, his is hung for what is rightly called his unnatural deed. So of things not criminal; nature never built a house, or modeled a ship, or fitted a coat, or invented a steam-engine, or wrote a book, or framed a constitution.  These are all events that spring out of human liberty, acting in and upon the realm of cause and effect, to produce results and combinations, which mere cause and effect could not; and at some point of the process in each, we shall be found coming down upon nature, by an act of sovereignty just as peremptory and mysterious as that which is discovered in a miracle, only that a miracle is a similar coming down upon it from another, and higher being, and not from ourselves. (Bushnell 31-32)

When I reflect back on past lives, being reported a form of Heaven in church or elsewhere, and how Nature is considered science-based when it looks more and more like the human existence is way past supernatural, I wonder how humans have a problem just standing in this and appreciating it for what it is. Others would tell you we don't exist based on a scientific idea, but here we are; the scratch on the record of the universe.

Is it a past life?

Was my young mind implanted with an idea of Heaven?

Am I real?

Are you real?

Is this real?

Based off of the thought, which I question how is a thought happening, not a supernatural event that is dressed up in the cause and effect of a concept that we named science, is any of this real and happening?

Or are we galactic ghosts? A version of a whisper of a whisper, what was but might be once again? In a place, far far away?

Image by Oleg Gapeenko

I guess we have a supernatural accord then.....

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Sources cited:

Bushnell, Horace. "Nature and the Supernatural". New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, (1907). p. 29-32.

Town Hall: The Sky is Falling

Image by Adam Zubek-Nizol

Remember this: Things have a way of coming back to haunt you. 

Where is the knee jerk reaction that dog hunting in South Carolina is under attack coming from? Is it fear of law enforcement?

I am in your comment section looking for clues. My best sniffer states that supposedly there is no pending legislation and they are just gathering feedback. There is no proposal. Changes to the states hunting laws must be made by the South Carolina General Assembly. So the recipe is: 

Public Input + Point of Conflicts = Potential Solutions

Are these hunters dramatic? Why are you scared? Knees are jerking everywhere.

I am looking at the town hall videos and sipping my Replenish Zero thinking, WTF?

I see this one post where someone named Greenswamp is telling another person he is in NC and "they not finna stop us we goin dump them damn dogs anywhere anytime they not taking my shit away."  

Just in one statement you can see the reason why. I was watching one well-meaning man pleading for them not to take it away from the kids. No one said they were. The SCDNR has plenty of programs for teens and kids.

If anything is threatening the future of dog hunting it is the steady spread of infrastructure, housing, and businesses. It eats away at the forest and runs the creatures further and further away from their breeding grounds. Myrtle Beach is gone in the way of hunting. You have to go on the outskirts of town and that is landlock.

Lets hits some points on the function of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resource in these shenanigans. 

They are not your surrogate mother or father. It is a Law Enforcement Agency that enforces hunting, fishing, and boating laws, taxes and registration. They enforce laws over wildlife such as alligators, bears, manatees, and sea turtles. Did I mention crime? They help other agencies with missing persons, drown victims or body recovery.

Anyone not securing a privilege and abiding within those laws and regulations will be cited per offense and go before a judge for a verdict and pay a fine. Each generation of the public is a target recruitment to funnel financing back into the Agency as either a law-abiding citizen or a criminal of sorts based on what services you get rendered.

The SCDNR is asking for input to help make an informed decision that will be advised to the legislatures so they can amended existing regulations, add or delete. 

The South Carolina General Assembly is the department that handles the actual law-making the SCDNR executes. You need to speak to your legislator and directly ask them what is being built as regulations and put before the Assembly to be transitioned over into a law or regulation. 

You can travel here: 

To look up legislation  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/

To look up your legislator:  https://www.scstatehouse.gov/legislatorssearch.php

It follows this:

1. State Legislature: The South Carolina General Assembly, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, is responsible for enacting laws that govern natural resources and environmental regulations. 
2. Committees: Specific committees within the legislature, such as the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee, focus on issues related to natural resources and can influence legislation affecting the SCDNR.
3. Regulatory Authority: The SCDNR itself has the authority to propose regulations based on laws passed by the legislature, which are then subject to public comment and legislative approval before becoming effective.

With all this being said, I think the South Carolina dog hunting knows that given the growth of human habitation and the dwindling landscape that shrinks smaller and smaller every year.

If you cannot get satisfaction from the SCDNR or your legislature, then maybe the dog hunters can form a coalition that will buy land and turn it into a hunting property that is shared by members and put in Trust or something like a trust to manage the upkeep and continual use of its members and their heirs. Talk to a lawyer about the particulars. 

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

2024 Duck Stamp Contest

Remember this: Talent can win more than once. Reading the directions are important.

Every year I follow the United States Fish and Wildlife Duck Stamp Competition. I usually follow Kira Sabin and her process as she selects the duck of choice to paint and her wins and struggles for getting to final shippable submission. She has sat as a judge for the juvenile duck stamp competition and provides excellent input. 

At first glance, you understand this is a lump of 300 or so entries that are of different levels of artistic ability and growth. In good purpose, giving someone the opportunity to attempt, and try again another day, is a learning curve of how not to give up but to come back to the drawing board and try again after improving one's skills as an artist, more so a wildlife artist.

Time and practice can cure a lot of problems. 

With that being said, a lot of the submissions were probably cut due to not reading the requirements. 

In the instructions, it stated something to the effect that you could choose from the migratory fowl, but you had to put in the conservation aspect and the habitat. Alot of these are migratory fowl swimming or suspended on water with some sprigs of grass. Its starts looking like a Sears portrait studio photo shoot. 

It views, "I am a beautiful duck, watch me swim."

2025 Winner by James Hautman 

Three Buffleheads

Here are some entries I wanted to review:

(Click on images to enlarge)

This image provided light and color and action with the above-below water line visuals. There is a hint of the cattails in the background. 

Several of these were hyper-realistic but lacked the conservation and habitat or action.

This image was camera worthy for realism but was portraiture with no story behind it.

This was a nice little photo with the underwater foot and bubble with the ripple of the reflection.

These two entries were cool neutral but still lacked conservation and habitat.

I thought this entry dabbled in the folklore and stop action imagery but had a suggested story, migratory fowl on the borderline of human habitation and industry. It looked intentionally different visually.

This entry was a great action shot with complimentary background.

These two entries I adored for the attention to detail and how much work it must have took.

This little entry right here was different. It is different to me because here you have the known and unknown where Conservation isn't always right there in your face. 

The questions to ask are:

Why is there a decoy present?

Is the decoy implemented for wildlife conservation science or active hunting?

What happens if the little fowl disappears forever from the landscape due to over hunting, disease, or limiting factors that will cause there to only be the remnants of floating fowl decoys that will drift till they get caught up in the mud, moor themselves in the grasses, or sink to the depths?

Will there be another image like this for the future or will this be a reminder reaching out from the past that illustrates the loss we will have as a country when a political pen swipes a paper and slowly but surely rubs it out like No 2 lead on paper? Because of revenge? Retribution? Religious fanaticism?

It is quite an image to ponder on. You travel from pristine, beautiful healthy fowl to what if it were to all end tomorrow?

These online events and competitions can bring people to love it and study on the greater ethos of Conservation and those creatures and landscapes within it and to those people that wake up and go to sleep every night with its past, present, and future always on their minds.

Go ahead and put it on your calendar for next year, practice and save up that entry fee. You will not regret it!

If you would like to view images click the link: 

2025 Federal Duck Stamp Contest Entries | Flickr

Federal Duck Stamp Contest & Event Information | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Adieu!

Footnote: All images are subject to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service copyright. Images used solely to support contest and spread awareness of wildlife conservation, conservation law, and public service awareness through education and learning.

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.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

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?

~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