Hunting: The Stigma of Serial Killer.

Image still from Hannibal, episode entitled: "Potage".

Remember this: Imagery influences the mind. The unspoken interpretation can either infect your thoughts as acceptably rational or make you question everything.

Staying with the theme of imagery, I was lucky to surf the channels to land on this gem of an example. I was already thinking in terms of this topic because of a previous read or something I had typed in a passage. I was watching a television show called “Hannibal”. This television show is based on the famous character from the movie “Silence of the Lambs”. I am not lobbying for anyone reading this to boycott this particular show. It’s just a good working example. The episode I watched was entitled, ‘Potage’.

The first opening scenes you find a novice brunette teenage girl with her father in the woods hunting a deer or elk with no horns. The girl lifts the rifle dubiously then I would assume due to editing the cross hairs show a doe’s head. She then takes a shot. The deer wonders through the bush then the girl takes another shot. The father and daughter later are seen unloading the deer from the hood of a truck. Next the pair standing over the deer’s carcass inside the family hunting lodge having a conversation. The girl named Abigail is telling her father how beautiful the deer was as she pets its hair and the father agrees. Abigail seems to be remorseful at the killing. Her father hands her the knife to have her field dress the deer inside the family hunting lodge. Abigail says something to the effect it seems such a shame to kill the deer. Her father replies that they will honor the deer by not wasting any part of the deer. The skin would make an item such as a bag, the bones a knife handle, etc. The father stated that they were honoring the deer by not wasting any part of her otherwise it would be murder. The daughter’s uncertainty at what her father is directing her to do along with her father’s lead of dressing out the deer and the mentality of dealing with the whole scenario is evident. Abigail begins to dress the deer from the sternum and he tells her abruptly not to damage the organs.

Abigail wakes up in the hospital. In the course of the show you see the lead character Will Graham showing an overhead photo of a woman impaled on a stag’s horns in a college class. Will contends that this is not the work of Abigail’s father but someone much more evolved. Hannibal replies, ““He would honor every part of them”.

The reason this scenario came about was Hannibal Lector called Abigail’s father to warn him that he was found out thereby causing Abigail’s father to rush kill his wife and daughter. The daughter’s attempted murder was a fail.  Abigail tells you that her father makes plumbing putty which is where they think the father may have disposed of the remains. Abigail’s brunette friend that is standing outside the house with her before the random angry stranger appears says the reason that there might be a belief that Abigail and her father killed girls was indicative by the statement made, “you or he both hunted so that should have been a clue’.

Will Graham is dreaming; standing behind Abigail as he looks to see a computer generated stag in the road. Will slices Abigail’s throat then gets up from the sleeping nightmare. The storyline moves to the hunting lodge.

“No parts go to waste otherwise it was murder” then Abigail states in disbelief that her father was feeding the dead girls to them.  As Will goes upstairs in the hunting lodge there is a dead girl mounted on the dried horns of ruminants in the upper level of the hunting lodge. Abigail comes in and screams.

Will tells Hannibal it’s a copycat killer not Abigail’s father. Hannibal says, “I know. He would have honors every part of her.” Now with these things being said the main character Will Graham seems to have issues himself, plus the girl Abigail being questionable and we really don’t need to go there with Hannibal Lector. 

Lector is about the evolution of serial killers he shrinks out and his own creepy requirements. We know his character from feature film. Abigail’s dead father was killing girls that look like his daughter, eating their organs, and use parts to stuff handbags. After that manipulation, murder, and mayhem ensue with Abigail killing random guy in the living room. Of course Hannibal being the Good Samaritan steps in to ‘hide the evidence’. With this I leave you to watch if you please. Here one could assume that Abigail is being nurtured into a ritualistic killer on the sly.

I had wondered about this evolution or maybe I should say deviation of the concept of the serial killer to the current day hunter. Anytime you have an influencing factor such as a serial killer it can easily be mistakenly interchanged with the activity of hunting with negative connotations. This is erroneous because anyone can participate in the hunting sport if they have a license or are unknowingly-knowingly insane. It happens. One could argue that a serial killer can dress up like a cop or be a cop and do his evil magic just the same. A serial killer can work in a oriental restaurant cooking or waiting tables. A serial killer can be a anti-hunter that believes blonde women holding poodles should die because they are Satan revisited while kissing the Mother Mary. Of course you have to ask how many of these mental images are from feature films, television shows or magazine ads?

Let us consider a model hunter mentality.

People who hunt have a clear governmental-approved license and description of what species of animals can be culled, at what times, in certain numbers. These activities are monitored by governmental officers who enforce law so there is not usurping those laws for negative benefit.

Serial killers do not have this. They are people walking around that seem normal but no one knows what they are up to until a body is found; if one is found. Law is applied at the moment the suspected serial killer is booked and processed for the judicial system.

We have no idea what early man did in his regime of hunting for food and killing it. Based on data from historical diets of early man it was assured humans ate plant and animal life. There have been times of note where cannibalism was evident. I am sure it wasn’t censored. Over time hunting became the sport of kings and subject of tales of bravery. Now hunting is a personal endeavor of society either rich or poor for food or sport. At some point hunting began to change negatively in non-hunters minds as an outlet to exercise ‘sociopathic’ or ‘psychotic’ tendencies because of the nature of killing animals for food or sport. We can thank a lot of anti-hunting regimes for this but it can be applied to anyone that does not see hunting as a normal activity of a select few in society that gather their own foodstuffs instead of purchasing them from a store. Another suspicious beginning for this negative thought toward hunting is the allotment with commercial ‘hunting’ of animals in bulk where the gruesomeness of lots of blood and dead animals in piles that could allude to over-exploitation for financial gain. A great example of this is seal hunting. When groups or people see large numbers of animals killed it brings about questions of greed and lack of responsible usage. I contend this could be the thoughts behind the flood of ‘trophy photos’ of animals hunters have killed then posted on social media. People that do not hunt see this barrage of photos as over-exploitation and lack of reverence for life. One man’s pride could turn into another man’s raised eyebrow. This is something to consider. It is easy to see how the crux of the ‘argument’ to hunt or not begins.  

I wanted to make sure my definition of what different labels that could be applied to a hunter psychology through manipulation or just compare and contrast. I wanted to know, as I have seen hunters called these things in conversations, the difference between a sociopath, psychopath, a serial killer, an a hunter were as defined by shrinks, the law, and the dictionary.

A sociopath is a person whose behavior is antisocial and at times criminal. Sociopaths lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

A psychopath is a person who is amoral or antisocial and lacks the ability to love, establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, or failure to learn from experiences.

A serial killer is a person that has serially killed two or more people separately by one offender (but do not exclude a second person helping) in a ritualistic fashion. Victims share a common attribute throughout the victims. Serial killers seek psychological gratification. Motives vary depending on the type of display the killer exhibits in the murder act. One indicator of how a serial killer evolves is psychological distortions learned or not properly learned as children who as exacerbated by mistreatment, abuse, trauma or rejection of society. A serial killer can exhibit social or psychopathic tendencies. Serial killers pick their victims based on some idea or opportunity but their victims start out to be animals because killing a domesticate cat or dog is easy to do with very little retribution. This experimentation on animals leads them to explore a human victim.

A hunter is any person without concern for his/her psychological state who goes into the outdoors to hunt wild game (excluding humans) for food or sport. This person uses a license distributed by the state to satisfy the laws of that state before activities are entered into.

To define murder in brief is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered by law. This act can be committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crimes and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation.

With these definitions being noted there is a clear difference.

I pondered on the stigma of the label “serial killer” that is tagged onto the people who hunt. This label is taken out of context if one references to what a serial killer is defined. When this label is used it is from the perspective that animals are human or have human tendencies. If it is an anti-hunter, one could suppose the same kind of misinterpretation of the definition and use of the words/meaning being used as personal tools for manipulation or erroneous thinking as the father who is a serial killer in “Potage”. The use of how these meaning are acted upon is a point of interest on how a ‘normal’ belief, thought, or idea can be misinterpreted and then applied.

The reality of hunting is that anyone can take part because there is not a requirement for a psychological test to decide whether a person is emotionally fit to hunt. There are already parameters on buying guns that should intercept people that are emotionally compromised. If a serial killer has not been caught by the law there is no way to say to the serial killer, “you can’t hunt”. The same thing could be said for an animal hoarder that no one knows the depth of their problem going into a store to buy another animal or adopt one from the pound.

Referencing back to the episode of “Potage”, the activity of going hunting, taking the animal home, or dressing it out is not untrue. The interpretation by the person doing the activity and their defining beliefs on the hunting ritual could be the turning point where it translates over to the decision to kill a human being. This mental pivot is where the stigma of serial killer is applied without foundation to the hunter/huntress.

It’s a form of manipulation and fear on the part of the label maker. The confusion comes from the idea that hunters are killing humans which they are not. I can see the argument of killing animals in wanton unchecked ways to the point of cruelty but this is not always the case with hunters. We can’t argue that all hunters hold this idea of ‘not for sport’. Hunters in truth do hunt for sport given the individuals.

The hunter eats game meat versus the random serial killer eating human meat. There is a big difference there. Unless a hunter got the taste of raw meat in his mouth then decides he wants to see what human meat would taste like is questionable. I would say anyone dancing around with this idea should go see a psychiatrist before he gets himself in trouble.

People to some degree in different locations have ‘banned’ the consumption of human meat and certain species of animals. A good example is horse meat. I personally do not want to eat this particular kind of meat due to the use of drugs and the fact I don’t perceive horse meat as food. This could be a different case with a person living in another country where horse meat is on the menu. This is another stigma for particular foods we eat or the idea. This eating of people is a theme in the Hannibal television show because the main character of Hannibal is a cannibal. 

The most notable story of cannibalism is the Donner Party. Society frowns on cannibalism but it happens. Cannibalism happens in all species from bugs to other animals eating their young. I am not promoting cannibalism and not all serial killers are cannibals.

I also noted the teacher and pupil theme where Abigail is being taught what to do and the mentality behind the lesson of reverence of the deer’s death. It was interesting the writer used a female. Females are considered much more emotional but can be just as cruel. You see the father slowly molesting or raping the mind of his daughter toward his ulterior motive of killing girls. As the story evolves you witness Abigail agreeing with ‘hiding the body’. Whether or not her father turned her into a split personality by the inability to process traumatic images but seem like a normal girl is another possibility to take into consideration. The different ideas one can scrutinize from this episode is not finite. There is the concept that impressionable adolescent teenagers and children can be influenced through what they are shown or taught by dysfunctional parents or adults into activities that society deems abnormal or against nature. Use of threats or a false sense of threat or trust can lead these types of children into deviated psychological behavior during their adult lives.

Here you can see how an idea or imagery can be balled up like a piece of paper, contorted and applied in ways that have nothing to do with the original meaning or belief. This manipulation can be used in derogatory ways to discredit an activity like hunting.

The comment on the episode “Potage” made by Abigail’s friend, “you or he both hunted so that should have been a clue’ is an example of the misconception that is being inserted into dialogue widely signaled to audiences watching the show. This insertion is an unchecked influence on culture’s definition or consideration of the difference between the motives of a serial killer and a hunter. The motives are completely different by definition. Just because anyone hunts does not imply this is a workable clue that a hunter is a serial killer. This is misconception, lack of education and very judgmental.

The reference of the father stating if any part of the deer is wasted then this is murder made me think that the father doesn’t have a clear sense of the definition of murder. People do at times deviate from the path and write their own script with or without society’s help. Did the father see the murdered girls as wild animals instead of people? Where this ideology comes from is unknown. There is the reference by the father that deer are like people in their attributes but not physically the same.

The fact of life is not all people receive or understand information in the same way. There can be distorted processing of information due to previously taught behaviors, ideas, misinterpretation or trauma that distorts learning in the ‘correct way’. There is always the question of sanity. One culprit to any of these psychological distortions is extremism. To what lengths does a particular person take a behavioral extreme or train of thought? It is then the application of that extreme into actions and the subsequent outcome.

The idea that hunters are serial killers, sociopaths, or psychotics should be left up to a profession once the hunter breaks a law ending in a human death. Hunting is a lawful physical activity of participation not a behavioral condition defined in terms as a symptom to a psychological disease, disturbance, or psychosis. Anyone using this should educate themselves for it is a manipulative and false use of terms, meanings, and applications.

Always be aware of what you are viewing but don’t be afraid to question it in a healthy sense or investigate through knowledge to make a more concise clear interpretation. There is always another ‘truth’ but that ‘truth’ can be the reality or the lie. Don’t be afraid to investigate.

The full episode of "Potage" here:
http://www.nbc.com/hannibal/video/potage/n35685/

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Sources Cited:

"Potage". Hannibal. NBC network. Developed by Brian Fuller. 2013. Television Series.

The Crucifixion of Walt

Remember this: Everything or anyone is fodder for the resolvable fight.

I have read the random reference to Walt Disney in hunting and anti-hunting circles since I began gazing from afar at the conversations on different public social media since 2010. Those conversations are like an unchecked STD. Highly infectious and will rot you slowly from the inside out if you tend to play in that paddling pool.

Interactions are in your face, in your conversations, and blasting holes in your reverie when you go out to do any activity. These sites are landscapes for the perpetuation of ridiculum; ad nausem. Personally,  after one or two ganders,  decided it wasn’t for me. Once again, it reminded me  of this Walt Disney connection. I decided to peer into the depths and take a closer inspection.

In the spirit of investigation, I wondered on this phenomenon of using Walt Disney in the anti-hunting vs. hunting echelons. In brief, the jest of these conversations are verbal banter,  going back and forth between different people,  where eventually the hunter type will post pictures alleging that ‘Walt Disney Got It Wrong’ with a photo of wild animals doing what they do best in nature, which is killing one another. This use of Walt Disney is the pivot in an argument to prove the ‘truth’. Mind you when dealing with anti-hunters or animal rights activists they have their own form of the ‘truth’. They are not above using a symbol such as Walt Disney to bring a childlike demeanor to further their cause of being non-aggressive. This passive-aggressive nature shows up on internet sites when you see sympathizers for that cause rally to find out people’s names, addresses, job  so they can go on a lynch mob crusade to show force to strike back at the evil man with a gun killing animals through online threats. People have even had their families threatened or lost a job because of the attention. A threat is a threat.  There are some people that do work the system for their own benefit in the hunting and anti-hunting community because there is always a black spot on the purity of something.

Some hunter points in rebuttal of what this truth is:

• Animals are not humans and lack human thought, emotion and language skills.
• Animals are ruled by instinct due to the flight-fight-freeze in times of threat.
• Animals can attack humans or other animals at any time and devour the target.
• One should not have emotions or sentiment when dealing with tame or wild animals.

Animal rights and anti-hunters rebuttal of what this truth is:

• Hunters are sick mindless, unchecked psychopaths that kill  poor innocent animals.
• Hunters are mindless brutes that should convert to eating vegetables.
• All life on planet Earth should not be allowed to do violence to other sentient beings.
• In the wild, animals should not be allowed to attack other animals, whereby killing or cheating the victim out of life.
• Humanity is a waste of space on planet Earth.

 This is a limited, vague dictum on the possibilities that ruminate in the heads of people no matter what side they align themselves with.

Has anyone ever noted an anti-hunter referencing Walt Disney?

Thereby, here is an attack on a person who has nothing to do with the anti-hunter cause and the anti-hunter does not really care that someone else was tossed under the bus on their account.

This use of Walt Disney seems to be an effort at indicating to the anti-hunter the need to question their belief system because it is flawed. Make no delusions anti-hunters are not thinking of Walt Disney when they pen out their agendas for the year. Using Walt Disney’s body of work as a light in the dark on behalf of anti-hunting shenanigans is truly wasted effort. In truth, they could take such verbal attacks and use it to their benefit.   

Individuals in the hunting establishment are using a much beloved and well known individual, that only wanted to make the world a happier place, into a mind-bending magician that used sublime techniques to dumbify the masses with feel good sentiment and animals that have human characteristics. 

To me this would seem an insult to the common man because if you enjoy Walt Disney or his movies you must be an imbecile because you don’t have the mind power to differentiate between reality and fantasy or teach your kids the difference. I can’t recall Walt Disney proclaiming his body of work not to be fantasy at any point and time.

When did this crucifixion of Walt begin and why had this not evolved on to other examples in the media. Why was Walt carrying all the illusionary responsibility for other people’s ideologies and being their whipping post?  I wanted to look at Walt Disney, the person and his body of work. Did Walt Disney really deserve this dragging into the fray type treatment?  Considering his early work,  where did hunting fit into the productions versus present day? How did Walt Disney treat the subject of hunting in subsequent films? Are there any others such as Stephanie Meyer, Bugs Bunny’s creator, or even the Flintstones to point a finger at?

My search was on…….

Walt Disney’s early movies were written by other people with embellishment based on cultural stories passed down by Hans Christian Anderson, the Brothers Grimm, and unknown storytellers of yore. He took a story and made them into a moving illustrated picture show. Walt is not totally to blame,  if blame is what you want to do. When regarding the time before Walt Disney was born, there was a menagerie of storytellers that used animals with human characteristics to tell moral stories about how people should act as human beings. Think Aesop’s Fables, Mother Goose, and any story coming out the Emerald Isles to manufacture magical beings. I guess to complain about people’s brainwashing with fairytales and magical beings is to totally crap on people’s cultural history and call them without a mind for wreck and reason. 

 

When Walt Disney began making movies his goals were clear: to alleviate unhappiness by producing works of movie art that would entertain the masses in times of personal and public struggle while giving them some moral undertone in a sheltered delivery. Of course over the years Walt Disney like everyone else,  has had his share of enemies or naysayers. If people from Walt Disney’s time were around today they would be appalled by what they saw or heard.

On to the article.

I found an article in an issue of Field & Stream by Margaret G. Nichols entitled Alice (and Friends) in Disneyland. The article I read was written in 1972. Forty one years later the argument rages on with absolutely no resolution.

The introduction of the article was dripping with undertones of emotion. After reading, Nichols thinks people get too involved in the emotion and she is just as guilty.  Either way you look at it people are passionate about the causes they champion. First the writer used established well known people and literature to drive an interesting lead in. I thought by the title it was going to be something about Walt Disney being avidly against hunting. After I read pass the intro, I decided it was misleading and the true problem was being addressed later. The reference to cartoon images and Disney wonder was distracting but finally she gets on point with the topic.

The introduction referenced Walt Disney in conjunction but indirectly with the Book of Genesis in the Bible. It spoke of Walt having God-like abilities to make animals in his image instead of humans.  After that there isn’t much reference to Walt Disney until the close. Margaret Nichols says the anti-hunting sentiment did not start with Bambi but the growing trend for people to be against hunting as anti-hunting sentiment was oblivious to the natural world due to the increasing imagery being produced. Was this one person’s low view of the general populaces ability to differentiate and dare I say it….think for themselves?

This might be a true statement to a degree because if a person that was against hunting didn’t participate in that landscape,  could be considered naïve in this aspect. Even to this day, there are people from up North that have never seen a live clucking chicken or heard frogs croaking in a swamp. Should we find fault with this reality? No. Should they find fault with ours because it’s strange? Quid pro quo; no, they should not. As people we should educate one another and experience our similarities and differences. If this merges or brings about change then deal with that row when you get on it. You could truly be dealing with a person that is naïve of such things but to show them frustration from not being able to lend understanding is also a good introduction to animosity. First off, they feel like they are treated like they are stupid because they don’t know. The person/group becomes abrasive and combative. Grudges are born.

On the part where Nichols mentions men being the only beast I find a problem because if you literally pick apart the movies,  humans move through them with the aid of animals not as beasts but as people with problems such as suffering. This suffering is alleviated with the help of animals. Adults and children seem to accept information when it is not in a threatening or aggressive way,  but the reader could discern that we acknowledge prematurely  adults should know the difference and teach this to their kids but not deprive them of stories or entertainment. We are not the Borg.

“Facts, after all, have little place in a cut and spliced and painted world. But someone has to mind that more and more people are thinking with their emotions, because the biggest danger that wildlife faces in this beleaguered world, where man really does come on as a super-raving beast, is ignorance of its problems and its needs. It’s all very well to say that if man weren’t in the picture, none of the mess our world is in would have happened.  But like it or not, man is in the picture, and he certainly isn’t about to disappear.” (Nichols 65)

I thought on this. Man is an emotional beast. For man to be divulged of emotion would imply humans are no more than machines; program us and watch us go.  If someone were looking for facts in a movie intended for children that is a pretty shallow pool to gaze in let alone search. I agree with the part about ignorance. I wonder sometimes how much actual thought is put into decisions or pursuit of things (especially the decisions no one wants to make or fulfill) where consideration is concerned or the things people say. We can also choose to be ignorant on certain thing because it doesn’t fit our agendas or arguments but the actual reality of the situation does not go away. Acting ignorant is just as bad.

Margaret Nichols does mention the hazards to wildlife such as overpopulation, unnecessary suffering, and management. Which is present in 2013.

“But some of the most vocal, and perhaps most disturbing because the word "charitable” often seems to indicate a direct pipe to the fountain of truth, are the organizations which solicit funds to help the cause of animals and use at least some of that money to propagandize and, in effect, lobby against hunters and hunting.” (Nichols 65)

Sometimes I believe that people who fling around the world ‘truth’ like a flaming sword will only be cut by it themselves. Its like telling someone you love them and not mean it ever.

I then thought that in consideration of allocated funds it would seem that the hunting establishment and the anti-hunting agenda are both making considerable bank.

As for Disney’s body of work, in I looked for the themes of hunting.

Disney’s early movies where the themes of murder and mayhem are prevalent but subtle you have the following:

• Snow White and the Seven Dwarves: The huntsman doesn’t kill Snow White and remove her heart. That is an act of humanity, compassion, and right from wrong. Even in the update version the Huntsman is a level-headed guy.
• Bambi: Bambi’s mother ‘disappears’ after a shot but we assume she is dead. Bambi is left to his own devices which in fawn reality is true. The hunters are individuals that are removed from the scene as mysterious people that cause a vague undetermined violence. Bambi’s mother being shot is not treated like a Rob Zombie movie to say the least. Her blood and guts are not slashed on the screen.
• Beauty and the Beast:  This movie was not done during Walt’s time but this is one of the few where the beast is a man who was vain, got cursed then turned into a Sensitive guy, who was victimized by Gaston. Gaston could be considered a person that is evil who hunts. Over exaggeration through extremes in character personality makes it certain what kind of creature you are dealing with.

With this I am not saying we should totally look away from media that show realistic imagery. When we sit and say things we should be looking at the way we live our lives and how we allocate worth to certain things that should carry more thought in terms of responsible adult decision making and scrutiny. Flinging people into battles or under buses for causes where they do not belong should be given consideration especially when you are acting as the more conscientious person.

Considering the imagery of movies such as Hostel, High Tension, or Martyrs  I wondered how as we moved across time in movie imagery to a dark place,  where being desensitized by images that were close to literal translations of murder and mayhem, that we jack our jaws about Bambi getting shot in the woods? Or yet in Twilight, when the good vampires who don’t want to hurt the humans, decide it’s in their best interest to hunt deer in the woods until Bella Swan decides she wants to go vegan. These examples are more current and just as relevant in regards to Walt Disney and his troop of woodland wonders.

It could be that Disney’s movies are long lived and remembered because of their positive effects in the way they treat violence and the human condition. Death and violence is subtle, which is what you would expect when dealing with children. Implied action where the parent can explain if there are questions when violence occurs in movie imagery, in a vague way. You don’t see Bambi’s mother all blown away, guts out, hanging from a tree. In real life,  parents have kids wondering around while gutting a deer. It’s the way you explain it to them along the way that counts.

If Disney were put on the scales of Justice I would believe he did way more good in the world than harm. I could be wrong but he was an avid outdoorsman who hunted and would not have aligned himself in such a harmful way against people to support openly such a cause as anti-hunters of his day. If he did I have yet to find it and there are only so many hours in a day.

As to how Disney got pulled into this fray,  you have Nichols who was against this woman  Alice and her anti-hunting group which used images of harmless animals. Disney being popular in an almost unconscious selection,  pulled from what she knew and built an introduction that lead into a story that had absolutely nothing to do with Disney aside from his use of animal images based on child-like wonder.

I  have to find an accord from the 1972 article where Nichols states, “it is time we stop using anything but honest argument, plain statement of fact, and open discussion of ideas when dealing with our wildlife.” (Nichols  152)

The only problem I have with this article is Nichols reiteration of cutesy images and indication to be less emotional, and build debate on honest plain statements of fact yet she is still dwelling on the bunnies? After making the above statement she could have dropped her preoccupation for the imagery, which had nothing to do with her angst against the woman named Alice in the article. This is like arguing to a wall as she said in the article. If there seems to be nothing left of sensible facts to argue the case to or for with anti-hunting peoples unwilling to listen, spend your time more wisely by promoting hunting, shooting, conservation, wildlife propagation and management or being a better human being. That always seems to work or at least for the past forty years since 1972.

As for Walt Disney, he may have vaguely treated hunting out of respect for the viewer’s not needing to see blood and gore. To turn them off from hunting or seeing something traumatic as an aspect of his movies just wouldn't seem to fit his personality or his ethic but he certainly didn’t exclude it either. He should be treated better. Walt Disney was not a rapist of the mind. There are far worse movies out there to rip your psyche apart as you willing check it out on Netflix or Redbox. There are also cable channels that signal murder, mayhem, rape both man and woman, and any sick thing you can think of all day long and into the night, nonstop. If you can't get it there its on the internet somewhere. Only a key stroke away.

On the other hand, go tell a First Nations person his traditional stories, where talking animals were used to teach lessons, that its total bogus crap and see what you get handed back.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~

Literature Cited:

Nichols, Margaret G. (1972 May). Alice (and Friends) In Disneyland. Field & Stream, Vol. LXXVII No. 1, 64-154

Read Field & Stream Article Here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9Bf50qA8C_4C&lpg=PA2&dq=Alice%20(and%20friends)%20in%20disneyland%20field%20and%20stream%20may%201972%20margaret%20nichols&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q=Alice%20(and%20friends)%20in%20disneyland%20field%20and%20stream%20may%201972%20margaret%20nichols&f=false

The Mistress of the Crescent Moon

Remember this: Men love beautiful women, but there is always one woman  (beautiful, ugly, good, or evil) they will love eternally. Death has no meaning for them.

Always thinking on hunting aspects that sometimes rivals my love of horses, art and all things creepy, I was looking in a book with a magnifying glass. Why do you ask? It's in the detail. I was looking at a hound, more so the hound's collar because it gives a very distinct three dimensional quality when you look at it even in a reproduced picture.

I then looked at the portrait in its entirety. The painting is cited under the School of Fontainebleau. It is called Diana (Diane de Poitiers) Hunting. c. 1550; Oil on canvas. The image itself is of a mostly naked blonde woman wielding a bow and arrow with a hound at her side.

I stared at it for a while.

I guess I could go on with the use of color, the brush strokes or the beauty and positioning of the model and hound but no.........

This was a loved woman and she loved to hunt which was how she shared her passion with her chosen one. Being a lady of the 1500s, I wondered what had happened to men and women  in our day and age  (or) people in love going hunting or anything in general? What happened? Where did it go? Has it become a mystical beast replaced by something else?

My wee brain couldn't wrap around it.

The following excerpt from the book is as follows:

"Within a few years of his marriage, Henry fell in love with Diane de Poitiers, twenty years his senior; she would openly be his mistress and political adviser for the rest of his life. Diane's sway over the king and her legendary beauty, unmarred by the passing decades, were naturally ascribed to sorcery. Gossip, however, credited the king and queen's ten children, three of whom succeeded to the throne, to Diane's practical-minded promptings.

The king and his lover shared a passion for hunting, and any references, however oblique, in any medium, to the sport or to Diana, the Roman goddess of the hunt, are a tribute to Diane de Poitiers. The royal palaces, including the court facade of Henry's rebuilt west wing of the Louvre, display a curious example of the Renaissance love for codes. The vertical bars of the king's initials are entwined with the queen's own initials, backward on the left, forward on the right; however, the letter C is the shape of the crescent moon, sacred to the goddess Diana, and the crossed royal ciphers form the letter D. " (Bonfante-Warren 15-16)

After reading this I could put aside the glaring ideology of adultery here based on the extramarital affairs. I thought this sounds about right. Hunting can be an outlet to be with the one you truly love. Of course, there are other endeavors one can pursue in a non-hunting realm to be with the one you love. It's probably better if you're both free then you don't hurt anyone.

I guess back in the good ole arranged marriage days maybe it couldn't be considered your fault if you fell in love with someone else, when you didn't really love the one you were with. Shared passion can be a defining mark on two people when they decide to 'commune together' or at least give it the old college try.

Besides.....no harm ever came from reading a book.

~Courtesy of the AOFH~


Literature Sited:

Bonfante-Warren, Alexandra. The Louvre. China: Barnes & Nobles, Inc, 2006. pp. 15-16 Print.

Red Earth Is Everywhere

Remember this:  We don't really own anything. That is the illusion.

I was scrolling through articles on the internet when I came to one that said the Maasai are being evicted by a Dubai based hunting company called Ortello Business Corporation for conservation purposes.

The articles I perused stated the Ortello Business Corporation was standing behind the term conservation. Other articles I read stated the Maasai were being burnt out of their homes and unnumbered women were being raped. I wondered at this. I guess you don't have to be Caucasian anymore to land grab, or force people out of an area; just have a lot of money, covet material physicality, time, opportunity and determination. Funny how that works itself out, but all paths lead to the grave.

This troubled me as a person-who-hunts. The reason this bothered me is: unique cultures and ways of life being trampled by those that do not hold that sort of thing in regard. I thought of my hunting. I believe it is my ancestral right, but if someone else does not share that belief, then it could be negated if opportunity showed itself.

It sucks feeling like an obstacle that someone has to remove.

This scenario reminded me of a section in the movie "Excalibur". There is a part where Uther decides he wants the wife of  the Duke of Cornwall so Uther has Merlin cast a spell to trick Igrayne into his bed. By dirty tricks, Uther does naughty things, but gets his.

Evil little men always get their comeuppance.

One could believe that coveting is the cause of all lucrative deals. Someone sees value and wants what another has, even if they have to kill for it.

Maybe it is because if its not their heritage, way of life or culture, why should they care? The offending group is not there for the good of all, just themselves. You can probably note throughout history cultures being completely wiped out because there was no reverence for the way of life for another.

Everything is expendable.

I turned my third eye to Charles Darwin's  book, The Origin of Species, in terms of the way we see things through our eyes, off our retinas into our brains and thus translated to something.

"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. but may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distinct image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the millions; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed." (Darwin 157-58)

That's right....let it sink in.

In our progress to become better through industry, business, and tourism the things that have survived for years are being smothered to be replaced by the bright and shiny. When that bright and shiny dulls it has to be replaced by something even more extravagant because human nature has now been distorted into the belief of instant gratification.

I then thought there must also be a note to 'lack of trust' here for this Maasai topic because if they have existed in this place for a long time but now someone came along and did not trust them to manage their existence on the land then where did this thought come from? Why can't the Maasai be trusted to raise there cattle? Why can the Maasai not be trusted now after all these years to exist in general? Has conservation become the enemy of the Maasai? Or is it tourism?

I sat outside looking up at the stars and imagined my existence in the spot I was sitting. It has long been my realization that existence is the Wonder. Humans beat it up and make it their slave because somewhere in time humans yoked themselves with commerce because of the lack of sharing in a another human or their greed. The ancestral human at times chained themselves but at times freed themselves to wonder and be free. We are not free in any sense of the word. We are not free when we are the supposed 'self-less' because that is annihilating. If all we are programmed for is survival then deep down that could mean we will destroy to live even if that means to destroy another. Is that what we really want? Is that the imaginary deal we make with a devil that ancient man did not know exist until they were informed?

Moving on to Ancestry.

Ancestry is given the  symbol of a tree. I fancy gourd vines myself.  A tree that starts off small and becomes over time a massive unmovable living thing with deep roots. Depending on how strong the roots are, or how healthy the tree; it lives.

The ancestral tree can keep going even with the sole help of one breed-able person.  Ancestry history  defines us, uplifts us, or at times makes people question our need to become a better ethnic group or become as a unified collective. Thinking in terms of ancestry, I believe we all have a history that is written through our relatives' trials and tribulations. Ancestors crossed oceans time after time for a better life. Ancestors stood on lonely shores in welcoming fashion to only die.  Some were murder, saved, lost, or sold. Now people only google them on Ancestry.com and hope for a green leaf. I then thought in terms of Ancestral Land or hunting rights. When you are born into this world aside from the fact that you are only chained down by government because you were born into the idea of it, you have an inherent right. What are people going to do? Toss you off the planet? Put you to death? Good questions.

I wondered on poverty and starvation in this topic because it seems almost like its the general idea that unless you work to the point of killing yourself, you have no right to food, life, living space or anything else. Why must you exist anyway? You then have to ask yourself the question: Whose right is it anyway to judge others based on their current predicament?

Mother Nature did not ever define who could and could not utilize something on the land, in the water, the sky, or even existence. Man did that.

Man has for many centuries fought over territory much like a wild animal. The only difference is they became more savvy at the fact land ownership had to be agreed upon by a system that allowed order. Order is good but not when it is abused and manipulated. This type of order was suppose to protect people from such things as land grabs where lawless people just walked up to point a gun or kill you then drag your body off to a corner to proclaim dirt theirs.

Back on the Maasai.

The Maasai are born into a community that has existed a long time.  Someone else is coming in to completely remove them. This process has been a slow one. Abruptness would only point out the brazen-like attitude in the endeavors. If this is the case any person with money can walk into an area to buy it, and remove whoever they please. Nothing is sacred to greedy men. Only the money and what it can buy.

We do not own wildlife. They come and go as they please. Yet we daily corral people.

I took a look at the Maasai. This group of people have been known for eons to act almost like a cultural heirloom.

There was a couple of things of note. One was how businesses were concerned with the sustainability of their business, but not necessarily with conservation as this seemed to be a tool per say. It also states that the money and desire is coming from the UAE royals.

Is it right for a business to use Conservation as a blanket term to privatize land? Was this the case here? If this could be done, this same type of thing could exist anywhere in the world and happen to anyone. I  thought of American public lands and the issue of privatization.

As a hunter, I thought of the old belief in not telling someone where your hunting spot was. Other people would defecate under your stand, pee on the ground, spray perfume, or leave entrails not to mention those that would try to steal the spot right  out from under you through land rent business deals done in the shade.

I thought if hunting is an ancestral right, then anyone that decides it is time for them to take over your ancestral right could march in and remove you from it.  I see on Hunting Pages, the administrators tout the terms it is our heritage, hunting forever, and long live our hunting tradition. I hope someone doesn't show up with a checkbook backed by a lot of zeros to buy that great place you have now advertised to make it their own for conservation sake. If they are so worried about conservation, I am sure they have a country in need of it.

I would think that whomever these businesses are would have an ambassador to include the Maasai in the  conservation effort. This would give them ownership as well as a vested interested in their land. Undoubtedly, the Maasai care for the place they live and do not want to leave it. Why not include, instead of exclude?

In essence, I will be reading up on this topic. It can be applied to anyone living in the world, whether they hunt or not. If my eyes can be a telescope as Darwin said, my instrument discovers many unsettling things that are happening now, and to come. In regard to Darwin's comment of 'we suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers" (Darwin 158), as hunters we should always keep abreast of what is going on around us. A pebble in the water can cause a wake felt around the world when it has no boundaries.


~Courtesy of the AOFH~



Literature sited:

Darwin, Charles.The Origins of Species. New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1999. Print.

Articles to peruse:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2013/0405/Maasai-face-eviction-from-ancestral-lands-to-make-way-for-Dubai-hunting-firm?nav=639071-csm_article-editorsPicks

http://letstalklandtanzania.com/s/tag/ortello-business-corporation/

http://blog.africageographic.com/safari-blog/conservation/think-about-the-people-before-the-money/ .