The Thinking Hunter

Fixing Things That Don't Need To Be Fixed

2012-02-16T23:21:00.000-06:00

My fingers have become numb fromtyping. Obviously, I haven’t beenwriting for my blog but I have been writing. I’ve been trying to get caught up on some article assignments and I amnow 2/3 of the way to being caught up. Of course, being caught up only means that I will then return to otherwriting projects that are sitting in the wings, which includes two bookprojects, “The Pines Review,” and a couple of other projects that are close tomy gizzard.

I’ve decided to keep the name of thisbog as it is. Why fiddle with somethingthat works? Too often we are tempted todo exactly that and when we succumb to the temptation to tinker it is the rareperson who can honestly say they’ve improved things. That’s a problem thatplagues the entire outdoor industry--too many people want to “fix” somethingthat isn’t broken. Throughout the four days of the SHOT Show I kept hearingcomplaints about different aspects of the shooting and hunting world needing tobe “fixed.” I was starting to wonder ifwhat some of these people were talking about was castrating NSSF because a complaintthat I heard several times was that NSSF should not allow the lawenforcement/tactical companies to exhibit at the SHOT Show.

When I asked why, the answer was usuallythat SHOT stood for Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor, Trade and not cops and robbers. The funny thing is that I can remember whenthe big controversy in the press room was the presence of “black guns” in theshow. In fact, one day during a pastSHOT show, the chief executive of NSSF rushed through the aisles of the show toa booth where the infamous black guns were being displayed and he ordered theguns removed or the company would be evicted!

The guns were taken down. Another year there was a controversy overpaintball guns and still another one was over the presence of crossbows. All ofthese disputes have faded and finally disappeared, but I am not so sure thedebate over the law enforcement and tactical exhibitors will be so quicklyresolved. The disconnect between these exhibitors and the rest of the shootingand hunting industry is one that is too easily fueled by grumbling malcontentswho want to maintain a purist approach to shooting and hunting. I think that isan entirely wrong approach. There isalready too much division between various groups of the outdoor industry andgrumbling about the presence of law enforcement and tactical exhibitors at theSHOT Show isn’t helping to heal those divisions.

glg

I Have Returned--With a Question

2012-02-11T00:30:00.000-06:00

I’ve been “checked out” of blog writingfor a number of weeks. Whenever I satdown to write anything I felt pangs of guilt for not having written for myblog. I felt as though I was cheatingthose who have been reading my musings. The problem is that I didn’t want to write anything and the few postthat I have made during these weeks of absence were little more than apologiesfor not posting.

Not good.

But, I was thinking about something thatwas troubling me. When I get into one ofthese “mood” projects I frequently lose myself in my thoughts and write thesethoughts down in one of my notebooks. The whole process is part of a mental movement that begins with a mental“tick.” Something that I’ve seen, heard,or read, strikes me as odd and I find myself returning to it and thinking aboutit. How long it takes me to resolve theissue to my satisfaction, or at least to a point where I want to present it toothers, is not predictable. I’ve got many notebooks, not all of them full,but into which I write my thoughts whether for something I want to write or aproblem I am wrestling with. A couple ofnotebooks have notes, jottings, drawings and whatever else seemed to be relevantto a problem that I first started writing about several years ago and I stillthink about and write on.

My blog issue hasn’t been completely resolvedbut it is something that I want to “bring out.” My mental twitch is that writing a blog as “TheThinking Hunter” is somehow incomplete. Besides hunting I am an avid angler and this spring I will be putting myboat back in the water and hopefully spending more time on nearby lakes. Should I expand my blog from “The ThinkingHunter” to “The Thinking Angler & Hunter”? Or, as some of my notes suggest, would writing about both angling andhunting in one blog confuse readers? Thepages of my notebook on this topic seem equally divided with thoughts thatadding angling would be confusing pages of notes that explore reasons formaking the change.

Now, to some readers this may seem likea trivial topic, but I believe it begs the question of whether there truly is astrong link between angling and hunting. We know that Wayne Pacelle and his crowd, the sworn enemy of all anglersand hunters, has a life mission of ending hunting and fishing. That alone should create a strong linkbetween angling and hunting.

I am not sure it does.

At the SHOT Show I had the pleasure ofhaving dinner with a small group of bloggers, mostly gun bloggers, and as I listenedto them I realized the distance between the hunter and the gun enthusiast isreal and often wide. That gap is createdby the number of issues between the two groups; therefore a similar gap,between hunters and anglers, exists and is equally wide.

What troubles me, and is driving my questionis that by these gaps we are allowing ourselves to become segregated by ouractivities rather than united by them. By focusing my Internet musings on hunting I tend to believe that I amcontributing to the problem. There isan old truism about who’s ox is being gored and suddenly all of us in theoutdoors seem to be thinking more about our personal ox, that is the ox ofshooting, the ox of hunting, the ox of bowhunting, ox of shooting, adinfinitum.

I believe that those of us who haveopted to focus our work on the issues that surround our preferred outdoor activitiesshould consider stepping back from that gap we’ve created by the “single issue”approach to the preservation of our outdoor activities and lifestyle. The divisions between shooting, hunting, andfishing, are providing openings through which our opponents are driving wedges toweaken us.

This is not a new problem but one I’vebeen aware of thought about throughout my career, but it is being exacerbatedby the explosion of social media and the gaps are becoming wider.

When I think about what I value in myoutdoor activities I cannot separate my hunting from my fishing as favoring oneover the other. Nor can I separate thevalues I put on shooting, whether casual plinking or shooting at known distancetargets, from my hunting. I believe theoutdoors is a lifestyle that runs the entire spectrum of emotions. Casting a fly to a feeding trout in a beaverpond produces as much excitement and accomplishment as a center bull’s-eye shotfrom several hundred yards or finally shooting a deer that I’ve hunted fordays. In the outdoors have too much incommon, too many shared emotions, too much to lose, to allow those gaps to growand perhaps become festering wounds between us.

Do you agree?

glg

Deer Season and Thoughts on Today's Optics

2011-11-16T00:25:00.000-06:00

Winter has arrived. Deer season is open and I’ve still got tofill my tag. This winter’s first snows, plus the threat of more unsettledwinter weather over the next few days, combine for my favorite huntingconditions. Now I will put a bit moreeffort into my hunt!

Two days ago I could haveprobably filled my tag when the doe I was stalking crossed a patch of openground, just where I’d expected to see her except she was quicker than Ianticipated. I was at the wrongangle. Had the doe crossed less than aminute later I would have been right where I’d planned and I could have takenthe shot. The difference was the angleto a farm house a half mile away. Whenthe doe appeared I raised the .270 and by force of habit I was looking behindthe deer. It’s all part of a controlledmovement that I’ve trained myself to follow. I didn’t always look past the target as well as at the target beforefully shouldering the rifle and taking my spot weld to take my shot.

It is tempting to say that myfather, or one of my older brothers, taught me to take careful note of what isbeyond my target but that isn’t necessarily true. I think it is a combination of my experiencesas a Marine and just the years of hunting. I’ve learned bullets don’t necessarily stop in the deer and as the shiftto non-lead bullets increases, at the same time that velocities are improved,we need to pay more attention to where that bullet could go after the shot is fired.

Not taking the shot might havecost me a few more days of deer hunting but I can sleep easy knowing that Ididn’t potentially endanger the neighboring family with a “spent” round. I know that I don’t always manage to thinkpast the shot, especially when bird hunting (but I don’t think I would pull aCheney on a hunting partner) but it is a practice all of us should take moreseriously.

All That Said. . . .

Recently I’ve heard shots firedpast legal shooting time. The legalshooting time here in North Dakota is ½ hour before sunrise to a half hourafter sunset. I can live with thosetimes but apparently some hunters can’t. When you look at some of the rifle scopes that are now on the market itis no small wonder that an occasional hunter will take these shots. Some rifle scopes sold for hunters have only marginallyless light gathering capacity than tactical optics. As for the true tactical scopes, with seriouslight gathering capabilities, some of the advertisers are aggressively marketingthese scopes to hunters.

Is there a line? I have to wonder if some manufacturers arestarting to push wildlife agencies into a position where certain types of riflescopes will be banned on rifles being used by big game hunters. We cannot and should not try legislatingethics but is there a point at which legislation is needed to preserve what isa right?

This is an argument that has beendrifting around in my mind for quite some time. It’s not a new argument and it has been examined by hunters andphilosophers for centuries. The Persiansadvocated the spear over the bow to kill game, as did the European kings, allof whom believed that courage could be gauged by how close the hunter was tothe quarry at the moment of the kill. Ernest Hemingway, Ortega y Gasset, and ahost of other authors and hunting philosophers of recent years have examined thequestion of technology in hunting and from my reading of their works all ofthem have cautioned against technology overpowering hunting.

Are their cautions againstallowing too much technology in hunting something we should reopen and give afresh examination? Or, as some othershave claimed, should the rights of the individual, at all times, supersede any restrictivelegislation intended to prevent a possible action by an otherwise law abidingperson?

So, should we consider thisargument: Should rifle/pistol scopes of exceptional light gathering oramplification capability, or equipped with enhanced reticles, eithersingularly, or in combination, be banned from use by hunters during somehunting seasons?

I am not advocating anything otherthan a question of the technology’s present and future role.

This is not as easy an argumentas one might first believe. Here inNorth Dakota it seems the law is fairly specific: The use of night vision equipmentor electronically enhanced light gathering optics for locating or hunting gameis illegal. Is this lawspecific enough or does it leave the playing field open to scopes that have opticsthat actually enhance so much light it encourages hunters to take shots afterlegal shooting time?

I amreally curious to learn your thoughts.

Thinkabout it.
glg

For Max

2011-11-03T16:13:00.000-05:00

I hope you don't mind if I venture off the usual topic for something personal, something that I want to share with others. Perhaps, in some ways, it defines me and what I write.

For Max. . . .

Afriend of mine passed away. Actually,she was much more than a friend she was someone I cared about in ways that don’tmake sense--at least to some people. Hername was Maxine and I called her “Max,” which is what she preferred. I learned about her death last weekend and ithas had me in a slump that has been hard to shake. Just when I thought I was coming out of it somelittle memory would be triggered and my mind would insist: “it just isn’t so.”

Imet Max 39 years ago last September. Iwas a Marine Sergeant and she was an Air Force Sergeant. True, I was married at the time, but I was nolonger happy in the marriage and I already knew that at some near point in time itwould end. It did. A few years later I was alone. Opposites, I had learned, may attract butthat doesn’t build a life.

Maxand I met at the military’s journalism school, Defense Information School orDINFOS. It is the same school thatHunter Thompson, the Gonzo Journalist, attended. A lot of other famous people received theirintroduction to journalism at DINFOS, and after graduation we were all “DINFOStrained killers.”

OnceMax and I got past the awkwardness of the problems facing us we were togetheras much as possible, and it was never enough. There are a lot of stories I could tell, because the time we had wefilled with whatever adventure we could find around Indianapolis, Indiana. Finally, however, graduation came and we wereforced to go separate ways, but we made promises to each other. One of thepromises was to try and make my marriage work. Ultimately, it failed. It was moremy fault than my then wife’s. When itfailed I tried to find Max but didn’t because her father, who had becomeestranged from the entire family, spitefully lied to me about Max. He told me she was dead. Twenty years later, by accident, I ran acrossher mother and she told me Maxine was alive and where to find her. But by this time all the chances for Max andme to finally be together had become dust in the fields. We could only be friends who had a past. That past, those days we were together, weredreams for us then, and still are. Weheld hands and walked in misty rains, we sat in corners of coffee houses and whisperedto each other, we went to parks and built campfires and sitting together we sharedour warmth and the fire’s heat. When Ihad my third operation on my hand, she typed my assignments so I wasn’t droppedfrom the school.

Maxineand I were in love. But for simplereasons we never took our love to that intimate level where you can never haveanother first. That’s probably why, whenI think of Max, I remember walks in the rain and sitting by the river with abottle of Sangria, and putting sticks in the fire while we leaned against eachother. One night, in the shadow of acovered bridge, she said, “You talk to the trees. I think that’s a good thing for you.”

Yesterday,after mourning her for several days, I had begun to think that I should dropthis blog, stop publishing The PinesReview and concentrate my efforts on something else. Maybe I should give more time to my bookabout Afghanistan in 1980. Then, with shaking hands I began to read herletters and her email letters that she’d written me after I found heragain. “You always had the passion,” shesaid. “I remember you talking to thetrees and the birds; you said their answers will always be in the voice of the wind.”

Idon’t know about you, the readers of this blog, and the ones you love or haveloved, but when I close my eyes I can still feel her hand in mine and our handswet with autumn’s misty rain. When I amsitting in the grass of a tree row while hunting, or just walking, I can feelher hair brushing me. And, now, when Iwrite, or sketch, I remember her, leaning over my shoulder to watch me write ordraw, and her hair tickling my neck and face. “It’s what you are,” she wrote. “It’swhat you were meant to do--to write.” I nowknow I can’t stop writing this blog, ThePines Review, or any of my other work.

Inher last email letter to me she said, “I hope you are still talking to thetrees.”

Iam, Max, I am.

Rest in peace, my love.

Love,

Galen (Gale’)

First Blood Pressure Results and "Sport" Hunting

2011-10-21T00:06:00.001-05:00

Thisevening I took my blood pressure cup/gizmo with me to the nearby slough. Now, the question is whether duck hunting,which is sitting in a duck blind, lowers the blood pressure or has no effectwhatsoever.

Itook my blood pressure before leaving and it was 142/76 pulse 68. After sitting in the blind for 30 minutes Itook my blood pressure and it was 136/69 pulse 72. I’m not sure what to make of it but this isonly my first day of my not so scientific study of blood pressure and duckhunting. What is interesting is thatonce I was back in my office I again took my blood pressure and it was 136/79and my pulse was 82. Now, the only thingI can say to explain it is that I was doing some editing--of my ownwriting!

Thisproject is turning into an interesting experiment and the more I think about itthe more I think I can turn it into a not-so-scientific article. I will haul the blood pressure monitor outwith me every day I go hunting until I take the results back to the VAhospital. I am really curious to hearwhat my physical therapist and my primary care physician have to say about thereadings. I’m sure they will both shaketheir heads in a little bit of disbelief--but then both of them must considerme a bit on the pixilated side of reality.

ABOUTTHINK TANK II and “SPORT HUNTING”

I’vebeen doing some work on my notes and ideas from the Think Tank II. I came away from the gathering wishing it hadbeen at least one day longer. There wasa lot of free discussion about the present state of recruitment to the outdoorsbut I heard something that was, to me, very important for the future of hunting,and it was the simple statement that hunting would be referred to as “hunting”and not “sport hunting” or have any other adjectives affixed to it. This is something that I totally agreewith. I believe that we must stop thepractice of trying to hide hunting under a pile of adjectives. I make this argument even after a great dealof research has shown me that the basis for “sport hunting” goes back to ancientGreece when the phrase “hunting for sport” actually appears in the writing of Xenophon. One probably asks why I dislike the use of “sport-hunting”in today’s language when it has been in use for more than two-thousandyears? My answer is simple--timeschange! For most of that 2,000+ yearshunting was a very blurred activity. Subsistencehunting and sport hunting existed side-by-side and often within the sameactivity. For the past 100+ years, withonly a few exceptions, subsistence hunting has fallen out of use as a “needed”activity leaving only what had been euphemistically called sport hunting in itswake.

Thereare many, many people who rely on hunting to provide them with chemical free,healthy meat protein, but to call that true subsistence is to dally about with semanticspooks. This sort of subsistence huntingis a choice by personal philosophy and not a choice based on true need. I am not belittling modern meat hunting as a meansof providing food--I opt for that with deer and other game--it is not, however,a requirement for our survival in today's world. There areAlaskan and South American peoples who still subsistence hunt because if theydidn’t they would starve for protein. Could it be that the users of “sport hunting” are drawing a comparisonagainst those aboriginal peoples?

Abrief look at the OED and other word research turns up some interestinginformation, primarily that “sport,” as was applied to hunting, did notnecessarily carry positive connotations, even as far back as the 15^thand 16^th centuries. In themiddle of the 19^th century “sport” began to increasingly be associatedwith athletics and less with what had been popularly known as fieldsports.

Theentire evolution of sport and sport hunting is more complex than my quick analysisbut the point is that as we move deeper into the 21^st century thereis even less to be gained by adding “sport” to hunting as a means of modifyinghunting. We hunt. We don’t harvest. We don’t box with, play tennis or footballwith, or any other organized activity, the animals we hunt. We don’t need to lie to ourselves or to thenon-hunter by falling back on euphemisms to soften our language. We can start by removing one word and simplysaying that we hunt, we go hunting, we are hunters. There is much more to be gained by beinghonest with ourselves and others than by trying to soothe the taste of wordswith imitation sugar.

Isthat so hard to do?

Thinkabout it.

glg

Blood Pressure and Bird Hunting

2011-10-19T21:35:00.000-05:00

Today has been a long day. I was up and on the road before dawn but notto go hunting--I had VA eye doctor and physical therapists appointments. The eye doctor informed me the eyes areslowly getting worse, which is expected, and my therapists, one physical, oneoccupational (I can’t keep ‘em straight) try their best to deal with me. Jody is tall, looks like he should be aMarine (like me) and Vicki is petit, blonde, blue-eyed-cute and quite capableof chewing me out for not following instructions. Anyway, my blood pressure decided to act upand Vicki made me promise to take my blood pressure several times a day andkeep a journal with the results, then bring the journal with me when I go backto the VA next week and show the journal to my doctor. Not a problem. But here is what I am wondering. Jody has repeatedly pointed out that I needto “take it easy” on the hunting. Hedidn’t say not to hunt, just change things a little.

I got to thinking about a hunt Ihad earlier this week. . . .

The other day I took Cookie anddrove out to our favorite grouse hunting area. I wasn’t in a hurry and besides, I’m supposed to be trying to recoverfrom the cardiac adventure, so, I walked very slowly and Cookie ran ahead. When she got birdy I turned toward her andwhen that bird flushed wild and out of range I just watched it fly away. “At least I don’t have to clean it,” I saidto the wind. Cookie was disappointed andwas quickly off again. I called her backthen returned to the Suburban so we could try for a duck.

At the little slough where Chasand I had shot several ducks I pulled on my waders (I have got to getsome new waders) and after unloading my gear, consisting of one bag withshells, coffee, camera, notebook, pen and goodies, and pulling four decoys frommy decoy bag, I parked the Suburban and walked back carrying my shotgun andholding Cookie on a leash. Back at the sloughI carefully put my shotgun down, picked up the decoys and started into themuck. By this time Cookie was having agood time and when I was about fifteen feet into the muck I noticed Cookie hadswitched on the “bird here!” attitude and was eagerly working scent on the farside of the slough, in the same grass were she’d retrieved two birds a few daysearlier.

Now, one of the things I am fondof saying is that Cookie is smarter than me and danged if she didn’t prove itagain. Twice she stopped working thescent and looked back at me with the “get your gun” expression that means sheis going to be flushing a bird. Ifigured she was scenting some ducks that had been there earlier so I didn’t getmy gun. I set the first decoy. Then just as I was about to set the nextdecoy a mallard drake burst out of the grass. It landed on the water and Cookie thought she had a cripple then it tookoff, scolding her as it climbed into the air.

Cookie gave me “the look.”

Yeah, I stood stupid. I set the other two decoys, went back to mygun, loaded it and sat down. Once I wascomfortable I poured myself a cup of coffee to chase away the end-of-day chill. A little later Cookie tensed up andlooked over her shoulder. I followed hergaze in time to see the geese coming over the trees. The loads I had were too light for the bigCanadas so I sat and watched. I watchedthem fly over, they were not seeing either Cookie or me, and I watched themland in a field a half mile away.

Later, when the sun was gettingthat golden hue that is a signal to mama earth that for this part of the planetthe day is over, a few ducks flew past but I forgot my calls. Besides, I’d been writing notes for myjournal and I’d talked myself into thinking that unless it was a fat mallarddrake I wasn’t going to shoot. The duckswere cooperative and avoided coming too close and in short order it was dark andtime for me to pack up and return to my office and get some work time in.

The evening was a good day. I couldn’t ask for anything more. Maybe I did overdo it a bit with the grousewalk, the walk to and from the Suburban, and of course wading into the thick,clinging mud that sucks at your feet and forces you to strain to take eachstep. But it was worth it even if I didhave to take a nitro pill later that night. The geese were brilliant, the ducks were just enough to get the juicesgoing and Cookie had a great time. I amthinking about taking Cookie out tomorrow evening, maybe walking a differentgrouse field and then sitting on a slough. Who knows? I might get a mixedbag of a duck and a grouse. I’m content with a couple of birds. There’s still some pheasant hunting to dobefore the weather gets too cold. Maybea couple of pheasant to round out my larder would be a good thing, too. But, then I am back to Jody, Vicki, myprimariy care doctor, and everything about taking it easy. So, I did promise to take the blood pressurereadings and keep a good record. I amwondering, however, if sitting on the edge of a slough, sipping hot coffee andsharing a sandwich with your hunting dog would really “lower” your bloodpressure? I’m going to find out bypacking my blood pressure cup in my bag with the Thermos, box of shells,sandwich and duck calls. I am not surehow my doctor or physical therapist will appreciate the blood pressure journalhaving duck blind doodles, probably some dried dog slobber, a little spilledcoffee and no doubt it’ll pick up that deliciously thick aroma of rottingvegetation that is common to all North Dakota sloughs, and hopefully a drop ortwo of duck blood, but at least I’ll have a complete record. Heck, if I get a shot at a duck or two maybeI’ll take it then, too. It might beinteresting to see the results of the blood pressure in a duck blind and prove conclusivelythat bird hunting is good for the blood pressure as well as the soul.

Think about it.

Friendships Forged by Hunting

2011-10-11T16:06:00.000-05:00

I’vebeen lazy. Okay, so I haven’t been“really” lazy, but I’ve been doing things that have a higher priority than mywriting projects. First, and mostimportantly, my friend Chas (The Southern Rockies Nature Blog, http://natureblog.com/) arrivedon October 2 for four days of duck and grouse hunting. We would have hunted the four days but I hadto go to the VA hospital for my post cardiac therapy on one day and Chasgraciously went along. By the time I wasthrough and we were back in Finley the day was shot. Other than that one trip to Fargo we wereable to hunt every day.

Thegreat thing is that this year Chas got to take home a few ducks. Not enough to fill a freezer but enough so hecould know that he shot at, and hit some ducks.

Chasand I first hunted together in the autumn of 1979 and it was a dove hunt thatmorphed into an elaborate dinner that has become a part of the lore of mypersonal history with Soldier of Fortune Magazine. How that happened isn’t the point of thispost, what is the point is that from that first dove hunt on to last week’shunting Chas and I have hunted together at least one long weekend nearly everyautumn, and will continue to do so as long as we can. Of course, there have been a few hiccupsalong the way and several seasons were lost to work, but there have been morewonderful memories than disappointments, and a few of those memories are thefodder for some of the stories in my next collection of short stories--withnames changed--of course.

WheneverChas and I have hunted together there has never been a competition betweenus. We’ve never compared the number ofbirds in our game bags or tried to measure tail feathers. We don’t even compare the number of shotseach one of us takes for each bird killed! Those details are not important to us.

I alsoderive a secondary benefit from our hunts--I bounce ideas off Chas. I’ve always been pleased that someone of hisintellect is open to exploring my zany off-the-wall ideas. He is never derogatory or dismissive of whatI propose and often the nudge he provides is enough to push my idea onto firmerground where I can develop it more fully. That’s the power of a true friendship, but more importantly, in thiscase, it is indicative of the sort of bonds that are often formed betweenpeople who fish and hunt together. Overthe decades since Chas and I first hunted doves in Colorado I’ve developedmany, many other friendships, but I can honestly say that only one otherfriendship has the same strength as the one I have with Chas, that is with RobertK. Brown, whom I met just a few weeks before meeting Chas. Like Chas, Brown and I met outside the realmof the hunt but the strong bonds of friendship were sealed while we werehunting.

Mostof my other strong friendships (though none to the level of Chas and Brown); weredeveloped because of fishing or hunting. I believe that it is because fishing and huntingare two basic human activities that were once essential to survival that weform such strong and long lasting friendships with other anglers andhunters. Every experience in theoutdoors, shared with a friend, weaves fibers of trust that are not unlike the longfibers of steel that become the massive cables holding up bridges. But what happens when competition is added tothe experience? Does competition become acorrosive that erodes the fibers, ultimately weakening them until they pullapart and the structure collapses under its own weight? Even Hemingway, who thrived on competition,recognized its dangers and it became one of the foundational elements of Green Hills of Africa, his huntingmasterpiece.

Today,competitive fishing and hunting dominates much of outdoor television’sprogramming. No matter how much “we”moan and complain about the programming, millions of Americans watch theprograms, some of them as religiously as Americans once tuned in to Ozzie and Harriet or Leave It To Beaver. I am curious as to how many viewers leavetheir favorite fishing or hunting program determined to catch as many fish (orone as big) as the host, or have convinced themselves they can kill a whitetailbuck or other big game animal that will surpass the trophy their much admiredhost kills every Saturday morning, and are then discouraged to learn it isn’tas easy as they thought? Does thisdiscouragement turn the neophyte trying to glean helpful knowledge into anon-participant?

The most recent entryinto the competitive world is “Fantasy Hunting,” an online game in whichparticipants select a team of hunters to score points on the game killed andwin prizes. If one were to ask “What’snext?” my answer is simple: “I have no idea.” Somehow we’ve now gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. (Fieldand Stream, Fantasy Hunting)

Without the warmcampfires, muddy bogs, the smell of wet dogs and the coppery smell of thecooling blood as we dress our game, to remind us how precious each life wasthat we took on the hunt or from the water, there cannot be truth in hunting orfishing. Without truth there is nofishing or hunting--only consumption.

Think about it. glg

Cardiac Adventure

2011-09-18T23:56:00.000-05:00

I’ve had several people send me an email asking about myrecent adventure with a heart attack. Well, here’s the story.

On Wednesday night at the Think Tank I had a heartattack. I remembered what happened to my friend Peter Capstick when hehad his collapse after a speech. People remember his collapse, not thespeech. I did not want to leave that conference by going to a hospitalfor emergency care and be remembered as the guy who had a heart attack at ThinkTank II. I self-medicated with nitro tablets and my pain meds. Imade it through the next day’s meeting and then at noon the host of the ThinkTank arranged a limo to take me to Union Station in Chicago (more on the wholeconference thing later). Once on thetrain I managed to keep everything together for 14 hours. I then drovehome (very early morning, before traffic, which isn’t much on the roads here inND). Once home I brought in my luggage,computer bag, bag with meds and fly fishing tackle, then collapsed in the livingroom. I couldn’t wake Michelle fromliving room so I went upstairs (really tough climb) and woke her. Shedrove me to Fargo (I refused to go to the local hospital because the “only”thing they can do for serious cardiac care consist of liquid nitro drip andstronger pain med (morphine) then send you to Fargo on expensive ambulanceride.) I still had nitro and oxycodone to treat myself. She droveto the Fargo VA, I walked in to the hospital, past the check-in desk (they taketoo long then put you in a line) and straight to the Urgent Care desk, placedmy bag of meds on the desk and said, “Are you the folks who take care of vetshaving serious chest pain—as in heart attacks?”

“Yes,” the nurse said.

“Well, my dear, here I am.”

Within a minute I was on a bed, getting my shirt off,getting an IV with a drip of nitro and blood drawn from the other arm.

“So, on a scale of 1-10 what is your pain?” the male nurseasked (while Michelle frowned at his efforts to get an IV inserted in veinsstuffed with high blood pressure.)

“Well, sir,” I said, “last night and yesterday I had it downto an eight or nine but Wednesday night it was at least a ten.”

“When do you think you had this heart attack?”

“Oh, that’s easy, Wednesday night about midnight, that iswhen I puked and was sweating buckets.”

“And you are just coming in?”

“I was in Chicago and didn’t know anyone there.”

“There is a VA hospital there. You could have called911.”

“Figured I’d come home to get it taken care of. Iprefer my doctors here.”

“How’s the pain?”

“About ten, can I have more drugs?”

A team arrived to take an X-ray. A minute later thedoctor came in, looked at some early test results, listened to my heart,watched the BP (very high). I recognized him because he has treated mebefore.

“Galen, I am going to get you an angiogram.”

A couple of minutes later, with the male nurse trying tostop the bleeding of the first attempt to insert an IV, the ambulance guysarrived. The other hospital, Sanford, felt I should go straight into thecardiac OR for the angiogram, so an ambulance was sent. Once inside theambulance they flipped on the lights and siren, great ride! We wentthrough two red lights! I asked them to go around the block but theywouldn’t do it. When we reached Sanford hospitalthe time from the moment the wheels of the ambulance gurney hit the ground towhen I was in the cardiac OR was maybe a minute. Inside the crew waswaiting, had everything from the VA (via Internet) including X-rays. Theprocedure for angiogram was started, they found one of those little blood vesselsthat was 100% collapsed. Took them a bit of time to get the thing back upthen get the stints in but they did. Oh, the doctor who was in charge(not the surgeon who did it) was absolutely stunningly beautiful. She wasleaning over and explaining what was happening then asked me if I had anyquestions. All I said was: “How did you get such incredibly beautifuleyes?”

She shook her head and walked away.

The nurses (entire staff, but two nurses in particular--Kristaand Jenny) were wonderful. Best part ofbeing in the hospital!

So, all is repaired. I need to let it sit withoutstress for another couple of days. I’ve been lectured by every doctor andnurse. Robert K. Brown (SOF) has said he’ll kick my ass if I ever do sucha thing again. He also said he does not know very many people who coulddo it. One of the Cardiac Critical Care nurses said I must have been agood Marine because only a Marine could make it through that kind of ordeal, ordo something that crazy. She must be a former Marine herself.

I am doing much, much better and I’ve even managed to getout and search for sharptail grouse with Cookie. Tried to stretch the barrel for a long shotbut couldn’t do it so came home with a gun that doesn’t need cleaning.

I’ve got a couple of deadlines to meet and then I’ll tellyou about the Think Tank.

glg

2011-09-11T19:21:00.001-05:00

I am back from the Orion Think Tank and I am feeling really juiced about everything that was talked about, over, and someitmes argued (usually me). I had the pleasure of meeting Jim Posewitz, an author whose little books on hunter ethics are game changers in our world.
All that said, the old man here is a little tired and going to call it an early night.
More to come later.
glg

Cookie's Day

2011-09-02T02:16:00.000-05:00

Dove season opened today. For me, here in North Dakota, the first day of dove season is the opening of the hunting season. Next week the season on grouse will open and it seems that every week or two thereafter another season will open, in some cases the new season replacing one that is closing. The sequence of seasons opening and closing is something that I truly enjoy. However, in this household I am not alone because Cookie, my German Wirehair, suddenly finds a new purpose in life--the hunt.

For the past several days Cookie has been like a tight clock spring. Every few minutes she would walk around my desk and push her muzzle under my arm and then try to flip my hands off the keyboard. If that didn’t work to get my attention she would start looking around on my desk for something to “retrieve,” usually one of my fountain pens. She doesn’t pick up ballpoint pens and rarely grabs a pencil but when she finally settles on something to retrieve she grabs it, sometimes working herself into a semi-standing position to get what she wants. Her game then is to go around the desk, with the pen in her mouth, and then “bring” me the pen.I don’t know if it is the change in temperature, or like the deciduous trees when the hours of sunlight changes it triggers their change of color, the sunlight somehow tripping Cookie’s awareness that it is nearly hunting season, but something does trigger the change.

As August counts down to September she becomes increasingly fidgety, wanting to get outside, get in the Suburban and do something. She wants to be active. Usually the opening of dove season finds me up early to get in the fields. Today everything had to wait until I had taken care of other business, and I don’t know if Cookie could read my desire to go hunting, or there is a mysterious connection between us, but she knew. This afternoon, when I walked over to the hunting vests hanging on one wall Cooke came unglued. She began jumping around the office and one minute she would be sitting by the door and the next she was right beside me. Suddenly, when I picked up my shotgun she calmed down and went to the door and sat in front of it. Her tail was wagging furiously across the floor and her legs were quivering and she was staring at the door as if she could open it by sheer doggie willpower.

Normally, when I open the office door and Cookie “escapes” into town she runs a few laps around our block, giving my heart another reason not to work as intended because she has no appreciation of cars on the street, but this time she went to the Suburban and waited. I let her in, clipping her leash so she couldn’t get in the front seat, and then I loaded Buster (“her” Basset hound, that’s another story).

After putting my shooting bag and shotgun in the front seat we were off. Cookie was calm, or at least as calm as she can be, while I drove to a prairie road between roost trees and a harvested field. Somewhere between leaving my office and reaching my hunting spot, a place where I could make a blind for pass shooting at dove, I decided that it was Cookie’s day. I arranged my shotgun, possibles bag and all important Thermos of coffee while Cookie and Buster were clipped to the Suburban. Then I was ready. I turned them loose and stood back to watch. Buster started on a heading and his stumpy, fat, legs blurred as he ran across the stubble field. Cookie immediately started hunting. She had her nose down and began coursing, but just as I had earlier decided that it would be her day, she decided to have more fun. She found water, chased the blackbirds out of the cattails, and when I shot at a passing dove she turned to see if it would fall (it didn’t).

Today was Cookie’s day. She ran, she swam, and she hunted, and generally enjoyed life. That is what it is all about, enjoying our world. I fired one barrel of my muzzle loader double and I missed. Okay, who cares? I don’t. Maybe I am becoming older, or less critical of myself, but whatever it is I had more fun watching my dog bound across the stubble field, charge into the cattails and then splash and swim. She shook off the summer and prepared herself for what is truly her season--the autumn, when colors of celebration burst throughout the tree lines, farmsteads and along the rivers, and deep inside those color filled days is the time of the hunt--Cookie’s time--our time. I suppose that is what separates us from those who don’t hunt. All they can do is look at Cookie’s time; those of us who hunt are part of her time. It really is a big difference in how we are living life.

Think about it. glg

Nonresident Issues

2011-08-10T15:52:00.000-05:00

I am not a big one for writing and posting from odd places that I find myself hanging my hat for a day or two, but this is coming from the VA hospital in Omaha, Nebraska. I actually completed my appointments a couple of hours ago but the hospital has free WiFi for patients so I thought I’d take advantage of that and post something that has been on my mind for a couple of days.

North Dakota restricts nonresidents from waterfowl hunting for the first two weeks of the season. The logic is to provide residents an opportunity to enjoy the state’s abundance of waterfowl before the state is inundated with nonresidents. I disagree with this policy. I do not believe that any state should have the power of restricting the legal access of hunters to any migratory game that routinely crosses state borders, whether it is annually or otherwise. I do not have any problems with nonresidents being required to pay extra for their hunting license, but in the same breath I do believe that some states charge nonresidents excessive fees.

Do excessive license and other fees imposed on nonresidents violate the spirit of the J-D and P-R Fund programs? Also, is it possible that these fees and restrictions on nonresidents actually develop such resentment among nonresidents that in their frustration when the fishing or hunting is poor after they pay the extra fees, usually in addition to the money they spend on other services and products within the state, they find themselves breaking the law or other actions that are detrimental to the outdoor sports? Over the past 30+ years too many times I have witnessed poor behavior by hunters (and anglers) in public places (restaurants, airports, etc.) and I’ve heard them complain (as justification for their actions) that they believe they have been gouged or screwed by the state’s nonresident fees and restrictions. Their poor behavior, whether it is just being part of a public spectacle, or actually breaking the law, always hurts the public image of both anglers and hunters.

Is the problem with the state as well as the individual and is it equally shared between them? Or, as some argue, it is the sportsman/woman’s responsibility to accept these fees and restrictions without public complaint/reaction?

What think?

glg

CRP Crisis

2011-07-25T23:34:00.000-05:00

Lots of summer rain and warm, sunny days are a two-pronged attack on my leisure time. For me, a good summer is when I don’t mow my yard more than once a week. Unfortunately, I don’t have a direct line to Mother Nature so I’ve been stuck with mowing the yard once a week. I like my yard and I like it when it is trimmed and mowed but I hate the work. Maybe if I spent more time working on my book I could get a fantastic contract and afford to hire someone to mow it every week. Since that isn’t going to happen except in my daydreams I’ll just stick with reality and brave the weather--sunshine.

One of the rewards of mowing a yard is that I can mull over something that needs attention. A very serious problem that has had my attention for quite some time is nowhere near being resolved and that is the CRP Land crisis.

Twenty-five years ago the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program was signed into law. The idea was to reduce grain surpluses thereby jumpstarting commodity prices while at the same time decreasing erosion on the marginal tilled soils. Everything worked great and one of the beneficiaries of this program was wildlife. Ground nesting upland birds had a place to build a nest and brood their chicks. Duck hunters reaped a bonanza (that they are still reaping today) because ducks will often fly more than a mile from water to build a nest and hatch their brood. With a wet cycle in the northern plains the waterfowl had it made with ample water, good, high grass in which to raise their young, protected from most predators.

We have all benefited from the CRP program. By all I mean ALL. Even if a person never sets foot in the hunting field or picks up a binocular to go bird watching they aren’t choking on dust storms from those marginal fields and the water held back by the root systems of CRP land doesn’t flow into those low spots to join other water to erode the croplands.

What’s the worry? There are millions of acres in the program--right?

Sort of right because millions of those acres are scheduled to begin coming out of the reserve program over the next few years and at the present rate within twenty years the total amount of land in the CRP will be reduced to a very small fraction of its present amount. Here, in North Dakota, wildlife managers are predicting that by 2019 there will be only about 200,000 acres in CRP. That is down from a high of 3-million acres in 2007.

This is an important issue and it is one that is going to impact a lot more people than just those of us who hunt, but it also appears that the people who are going to step forward (once again) and seize the reins will be America’s hunters. Landowners claim that keeping the lands out of crop production is cutting into their ability to realize a profit from farming and when we translate that into how we keep those lands in the CRP the solution is “more money paid out.” Unfortunately we can no longer rely on the government to completely fund the program. I believe that solving the CRP crisis is going to require a stamp program not unlike the Waterfowl stamp. I know it is another hit on our pockets but better a hit than a total collapse of CRP and the corresponding loss of wildlife (game and nongame).

The Rocking Horse Effect

2011-06-30T23:19:00.007-05:00

At last we have a real summer day, the mercury has climbed into the high 90s and with the humidity we’re having a heat index of 107. For us, that’s a lot of heat. We’ll be dropping back into the 80s and below in a few days so we will have had our “summer heat wave.”

One of my pleasures in life is thinking. I know that all of us “think,” but what I enjoy doing is taking a problem and putting it in my head, somewhere in the subconscious, and letting it percolate. After some amount of time I have my answer. This is probably why I am lousy at taking tests. I want to spend too much time looking at the problem before presenting my answer. This is the point of “The Thinking Hunter.” I am not interested in presenting quick answers to questions that are presented to me, but answers that I try to reach after working with the question. I like to research the question and the ramifications of the different answers before I settle on one. I am not saying that my answer to a question or problem is “the” answer, but that when I do offer an answer it is one that has been carefully thought about. Some questions have no viable answer because each answer creates a new set of problems that require different answers. Philosophers have dealt with this problem for centuries and while they understand it, have identified it and provide several different descriptive names and analyses for it, are no closer to resolving it. An example of this (in our world of the outdoors) is the question of wild geese. Regardless of the course of action taken to control wild geese numbers that have reached problematic population levels the action is going to produce both negative and positive results. Plus, if the action taken is emphasized to produce greater results, whether negative or positive, more negative results will be produced.

For Example: If, in one population area, the action taken removes 500 geese and the positive result is a cleaner (but not completely clean) park then removing 1000 geese should increase the positive result. In fact, the result will depend entirely on the remaining population. If the number of remaining geese is too low to insure the population’s survival of the annual migration there are new problems to consider. Will the park’s aesthetic value be decreased by the lack of returning geese? Or, perhaps the value will increase because the geese were actually decreasing the value. The list of consequences for each action goes on.

So what am I getting at?

Recently I was in a discussion in which the primary topic was whether we (humans) could actually manage wildlife and/or nature. The center of the discussion consisted of the fires, floods, geese and of course wild hogs, all which were brought up by one side as examples of failures of human efforts, while the other side claimed that the present flood situation is a product of humans never having seen this much water, the fires are wholly nature’s doing because of the droughts, the geese populations are a success story and the spread of wild hogs is a benefit by providing meat (when on accessible lands) and income (guides, etc.). I retreated from offering an opinion because I wanted to think about the question: Can we humans manage wildlife/nature without creating such imbalances that nature’s corrections create an ecological rocking horse effect?

Think about it--I am.

glg

The Farm Connection

2011-06-14T01:32:00.004-05:00

Yikes! I’ve been so wrapped up in working on the remodeling of our house I’ve ignored the rest of the world in favor of hammer, nails and wood. My project was to finish the built-in shelves between the dining room and living room--I did. Now I can begin working on the cabinets/counter that will be between the dining room and kitchen. Lots of work but something I enjoy. I like the feel of wood being transformed into something lasting and naturally beautiful with its own colors and designs. When I am working on wood I can block out the world and let my mind go through all the garbage that has been forced into it and toss out the junk--which is a surprising amount.

In addition to building the cabinets and shelves and general remodeling, I am collecting wood from Michelle’s family farm. I’ll be incorporating that wood into the dining room set for Michelle. When it is all finished it will be something that I hope will be passed down to future generations on her side, who will be told that it was made by “Papa-G.” Recently the project took on a little more importance because Michelle’s parents had to sell the farm. A brother (M’s uncle) who passed away a couple of years ago didn’t have a will so his interest in the farm passed to his wife, who also passed away without a will. They didn’t have any children so their interest in the farm (there is also a sister who owned the final third) passed to a niece or some such obscure relative who had no connection to M’s family, who saw dollar signs and not the intrinsic value of the farm. Fortunately, the buyer is someone who does appreciate the value of the farm and when I called to ask about gathering wood for my winter office heat, and cutting wood for the furniture for Michelle (and for her sister) he told me it wouldn’t be a problem and to continue as I have.

The value of something like a farm is an interesting and extraordinarily complex thing. I believe it takes someone who has at least a little experience with the pleasure of having a farm to understand that value. My family had a farm in Oklahoma (the farm has an interesting history--for another time) and while I never lived on it (some of my siblings did) I do have many memories of “going to the farm” in the spring and summer. First for planting a garden, then maintaining it and finally harvesting it. It was enough for me that when my parents sold the farm I somehow felt a sudden disconnection that exists to this very day. On my last trip “home” (Blackwell, Oklahoma) I drove to Lamont and then out to the site of the farm. I was secretly hoping to see some trace reminder of what had been “the farm.” There was nothing. Not a tree nor a bush and when I walked where I was reasonably sure the farmhouse had been I couldn’t even find a splinter of wood. Every inch of ground was cleared, plowed and part of what had once been the fields where my father had grown up and later farmed. Now it is all one field and the memories that should haunt it have all but drifted away.

Here in North Dakota Michelle’s family farm was not “my” family farm and yet I had developed a connection to it. For the past ten years I have cut a winter’s supply of firewood out of the farmstead’s dead trees. I’ve hunted ducks and deer on the farm and driven across the harvested fields to hunt other sloughs and dove in the trees. I’m sure the new owner will let me hunt deer in the trees and waterfowl on the slough and dove in the trees, but the connection is forever severed. I’ll cut the wood that I’ll make into furniture and eventually that project will be finished and I’ll be through searching for straight logs to cut into lumber. The only wood I’ll then be cutting will be firewood and finally that too will end. I don’t know if my deer and duck hunting will end before the firewood, or after, but they will end. I have to believe the new owner’s children will develop a connection that will lead to future generations of deer and ducks and hunters.

Think about it.

New Issue of The Pines Review

2011-04-14T23:17:00.005-05:00

Ugh! The weatherman is talking about more snow and I was just getting used to seeing my yard! I feel for the people in the "low country" with all of the flood problems. We really do live in a town that is sort of on a hill!
I haven't heard how the bird populations are expected to fare this spring but I am hoping for a good hatch.

I decided not to go to the NRA Convention this year because I've got some other trips that I really feel I need to take. One is south to Colorado to see Chas and do some fishing and the other is west to see my son and grandkids. Somehow, I've got to work on attenting at least two outdoor writer organization conferences. It's a busy year ahead and I haven't figured out how much I want to get involved in the nonfamily stuff at the expense of family and friends.

I have made some progress in another direction--the new issue of The Pines Review is finally out. I am pleased with most of it and because it is the annual list of winners of the EIC awards in both national and regional organizations it is a bit thin on editorial matter. There are over 750 awards given out each year in the outdoor media and collecting all those names and award information is a time consuming job but one that I feel has some merit if it gets a little positive recognition headed our way.

I hope that you will take a few minutes to follow the Issuu link so you can read The Review online. You can read it with page turning technology and if you need to enlarge the page (like me) there is a bar with tools at the top of the screen. You can follow this link to the online Pines Review. http://issuu.com/thepinesreview/docs/v_iv_no_1_winter_2011_jan_-_april?viewMode=magazine. There is also a section where you can subscribe to the online magazine.

After you've browsed the online version you can order a printed copy by using the below link to MagCloud's website to jump over and order a full color printed Review. The printed copies are really impressive and say a lot about how print media is changing.

The Pines Review Issue 6: Vol. IV No. 1 Winter 2010 Jan. - April

Annual list of the winners of the Excellence in Craft Awards, the premier awards for American and Canadian outdoor writers, phototographers and broadcasters.Kathleen Clary Miller's column "High On The Wild," plus columns by Andy Lightbody, Jeff Davis and Rachel Bunn. Short fiction by Ken Keiser, re…

After you read the Review don't be afraid to write me and tell me what you think.
Take care.
glg

I really am here

2011-04-14T15:04:00.003-05:00

I've been try to put up a post that I am still here. I just finished the new issue of "The Pines Review" and now dealing with taxes. I'll be back before the end of the weekend.

My Line In The Sand

2011-03-08T23:42:00.002-06:00

I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to the two questions I asked in my previous blog posts. The comments that I received from all of you were very insightful and gave me pause. I wondered if I should rethink my position on the NRA. Were my associations with various officers and other, well-known members, clouding my vision about the organization? It is not an easy question to answer because for nearly thirty years I’ve been a life member and before that I was an annual member. I’ve worked with the NRA and helped organize the first “Friends of the NRA” fund raising banquet in Colorado and I have relied on the NRA to provide information for hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. Finally, of the two individuals who are the closest to me as friends one is a life member and the other a benefactor and also a member of the NRA Board of Directors. The questions I have been asking myself I wanted to give more than casual thought. I wanted to probe my thinking as deep as I possibly could.

Here’s my conclusion.

Many years ago I unconsciously drew for myself a line in the sand over the Second Amendment. I had just passed through a phase of my life where I decided I would give up hunting and guns. For several years this “hunting-free” lifestyle seemed adequate but when I came face-to-face with a choice about whether I would once again hunt or leave it forever I chose to hunt. A few years later I wrote a story about that decision and the events leading up to it and the story won several awards and has been reprinted in a number of magazines. At the time I wrote it I did not equate Second Amendment issues with my return to hunting. The transformation occurred when I was sitting in a Colorado Springs restaurant with a young lady I knew only casually. In the course of the conversation I said that on Friday I would be taking my daughter to stay with my mother over the weekend because I was going dove hunting with two friends. Out of the clear blue she asked if I owned a gun. I explained I did and then she asked how I was able to buy a gun and I told her where I’d bought it and the other details. She then screwed up a very serious tone and facial expression and said she thought people who had been in Vietnam should not be allowed to have guns because “everyone knows the fighting and killing ‘over there’ had messed up their minds and they couldn’t control themselves.” She went on to offer, in great detail, how Vietnam Veterans had committed “thousands of murders” and other crimes after coming home and she had believed that they could no longer own guns--she also believed that the police had an obligation to find those Vietnam veterans and take away their guns. “They are easy to find because they dress like they are still in the army,” she said definitively, obviously forgetting I was one of those veterans.

I don’t remember a lot of the conversation after that but I tried to talk to her about how I’d grown up in a family that did a lot of hunting and I started hunting with my father--all of the typical arguments about hunting and guns. She wouldn’t hear any of it. She finally stood up to leave and matter-of-factly said that I could call her “after you get rid of your gun and quit killing animals.” I never again saw or heard from her, nor did I try to contact her.

Now, after days of thinking about the NRA comments here on this blog and where I position myself today I’ve slowly realized that on that warm, late summer afternoon I drew a line in the sand. At the time I didn’t realize I had. I only knew that I felt betrayed because the freedom to own a gun is woven into the fabric of the nation. In the recess of my mind there was also the realization that this national fabric that I had taken for granted was not sewn of steel but of the finest threads and its red dye is the blood of its sons and daughters. We take for granted that those ideas and beliefs that have formed our national fabric will stand for themselves and will always be there. We expect our fabric to stand in sacred honor. It does not. We have learned it is a gossamer fabric that shimmers and shakes in the political and emotional winds that threaten to tear each of the threads from its anchor.

We are a nation of choice; the national fabric has been woven from the threads of choice. Our nation stumbled by fitful starts into weaving our fabric of choice, a democratic republic if you will, where finally nearly every man and woman can choose. We are not perfect, so we must try to be better.

One choice that we have is whether to own a firearm. That choice, that thread of our fabric, is one where I have drawn my line in the sand, and yet every year there are new pressures to change that choice, to erase that choice, and to rip the threads of that choice from the national fabric and in too many cases the foes of that choice have won small, but compounding victories, ripping one thread at a time from our fabric.

Protecting the Second Amendment is not a simple act of maintaining a stand in its defense but of being aware that each and every day someone is reaching for our national fabric and brushing threads away by claiming they are clearing cobwebs. That now nameless young woman I had found so attractive wanted to clear away what were, to her, cobwebs. Often, in so many people’s eagerness to clear away what they believe are cobwebs surrounding the birthrights they call relics, they soon discover they have forged their own chains.

I cannot, individually, stop people who are determined to clear away the Second Amendment, whether they are doing so in small pieces or plan to by one motion, but I can stand firm with others and keep them from tearing down this part of our national fabric. This is my vigilance. Each person must draw their own line; stand their own watch against the darkness and pray they have made the right decision. That is each person’s birthright.

Semper Fi

Next post, new subject.

Abrams and the NRA--First Look

2011-02-13T00:33:00.001-06:00

Humm, well, I read the responses and took notes and I spent several hours researching the actions of Sandy Abrams. I am doing some more research on the questions raised but I do have a couple of comments. The first is that where there is smoke, there is fire. I won’t excuse Abrams’ actions and I am curious about the reasoning behind the NRA’s investment in his defense. Perhaps there are some other circumstances that need to be considered. As for the flood of online reading about the Abrams case I did spend quite a bit of time reading a variety of material, including the 26 page report by the Brady Campaign. Therein lies the problem, I waded through more than 50 different web sites and postings on the Sandy Abrams issue and all but one was either by, or originated with the Brady Campaign or an element of it. But, as I said, where there is smoke there is fire. I am trying to get a few more details on Abrams and the NRA’s policy regarding any felon serving on the board. When I have this information I will share it with you.

Please note, however, that my initial reading of the dates, charges, offenses, etc. all show that during his time on the board he had not been convicted of any crime and therefore, even though he had been charged, he was not convicted and could serve. I could very easily be wrong and if I am I’ll let you know.

One of the problems with the Internet is that a massive amount of material can be placed on the web so that an organization actually floods the Internet with “their” side of an issue. All it takes is for the material to be slightly repackaged, even though it is essentially the same material, and because there are changes in format, style, layout and other details, but not in the actual content, an organization can flood the Internet, making it appear that a number of different organizations, including organizations that resemble legitimate news organizations, all share the same viewpoint. The crawlers, spiders, search engines, and whatever else, pick up the sites as being different, thought linked to the question. This is exactly what the Brady campaign does and does very effectively. Every (there was not an exception) site that contained information attacking the NRA and Abrams I traced back to the Brady Campaign. I was unable to locate a single independent source to verify their claims--even when I examined the Brady Campaign’s endnotes on their most official appearing PDF file it was filled with information generated within the Brady Campaign’s other publications. Granted, not all of the sources cited were Brady sources but so many were that it invalidates the Brady report on Abrams.

Still, I am not convinced that Abrams should be allowed to go unpunished and the transfer of guns that Swamp Thing mentioned does stick hard in my craw and I feel it is a violation of the spirit of the law, though it is apparently not a violation of the letter of the law. Too often the spirit and letter have been allowed to drift apart and the law suffers for it, especially in gun laws.

The final question I have is whether we would still have the right to own firearms if we did not have an NRA in Washington? To really understand the possible answers to the question we must get past all of the hyperbole and consider the history of firearms issues. If the answer is that the Second Amendment would stand as a sacred protection that does not require constant defense then the NRA should return to its roots of promoting marksmanship. On the other hand, if the answer is that the Second Amendment, like the First, and in fact most of the amendments of the Bill of Rights, must be constantly examined and defended, then the NRA’s role is an essential one, just as the organizations that are watchdogs of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, etc., are all essential. I believe it is a valid question worthy of discussion.

What do you think?

glg

Gun Owners Who Avoid The NRA

2011-01-31T23:10:00.003-06:00

I've been thinking--and writing. Part of my writing has been working on the next issue of The Pines Review, but I've also been lost in thought on some of the issues we are going to be facing in the next couple of years. Sometimes there is a bit of coincidence with other events and it sparks me to write some notes for later use. Following is a cleaned up set of notes that came from a combination of reading my latest issue of Rifleman (NRA's publication)and watching CNN.

I am always amazed at the number of gun owners who are convinced the National Rifle Association is their enemy. How they became convinced of this is a mystery to me, although I do believe the news media is largely responsible, but irrespective of the source, the outcome is the same—they want to believe their strongest ally is their enemy. This came home for me recently (again) while I was watching CNN. I usually watch CNN because I can’t stand soaps and CNN at least has news feeds from around the world. I’ve tried watching Fox but honestly, I want to know what the “other” guys are thinking. I already know where Fox news and its commentators’ heads are, but I’m not always sure where the other media heads are—other than locked step in “stupid” comments. In a recent newscast CNN’s Ali Velshi, who is supposed to be the business anchor, decided to promote an article from the “New York Times” headlined, “N.R.A Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say” and then Velshi called for viewer comments. Since I was still in my “reading” time and my laptop was not on, I opted not to read the article nor respond to another CNN push against guns. Besides, I was still stinging from learning that someone I thought was pro-NRA actually isn’t. He’s a gun owner, hunter and member of the military and I learned of his position when I asked if he would support me if should decide to run for the NRA Board of Directors.

Why are so many people who enjoy the rights and privileges that the NRA defended and won for gun owners hostile to the NRA? I believe their hostility stems from misunderstanding the NRA’s political role and its effectiveness, a misunderstanding resulting from misinformation and from the use of a grungy “tough guy” image as representative of the NRA’s grassroots membership during the NRA’s growth periods of the 1980s through much of the 90s. The image was popularized by the media which zeroed in on the “cold, dead hands” position that epitomized the entrenchment of gun owners against the suddenly powerful anti-gun community, which had grown exponentially following the failed Reagan assassination that left James Brady disabled. Sarah and James Brady capitalized on their new political influence with a wide segment of the population; they used the shooting and its aftermath to provide political fuel to Handgun Control, Inc. (now Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence). The anti-gun community’s most recent gambit is to characterize gun owners as psychology off-balance and then link this image to the unkempt tough guy, the cold, dead hands, Wild West, and other characterizations, all intended to create an unacceptable image of contemporary gun owners. The antis are trying to fuel this characterization by redirecting the national outpouring of support for Congresswoman Giffords, and the other victims, into a personal distaste for, and misunderstanding of, the verbal political jousting of recent elections by creating a “guilt by association” perception of gun owners, although there is no actual association! Regardless of the absence of legitimacy for the claims the anti-gun community is able to feed sound bites and features that imply the lunatic fringe dominates gun ownership.

Now, and in the coming few years, it is essential for the NRA to connect with the grassroots society, creating a repeat of the NRA’s successful defeat of most (not all) anti-gun legislation of the 80s and 90s by mobilizing this segment of society. Unfortunately, the grassroots movement, no matter how influential at the time, did not completely resonate throughout the nation’s gun owner/hunter population and many supportive elements have drifted away in the past ten years. The simple truth is that to expand NRA’s membership beyond its present community will become more difficult, even with the growth of the outdoor media personalities on the outdoor channels, because the once successful NRA costumes no longer resonate with much to the gun owner population.

One persistent problem is that when we put our NRA leadership before the press they appear to be Wall Street clones. Some people might believe that red ties and dark suits radiate confidence and a rock solid public image, but it doesn’t. It is a costume, just as the hunter who wears his cammies into a shopping mall is wearing a costume. Each one is trying to project an image for others to notice. All of us wear costumes, whether it is blue jeans and tee shirts with political slogans or a tailored blue suit and a red tie. What we are trying to project with each costume is important to our success or failure as public representatives of what we are. It is unfortunate that the costumes holding down each end of the NRA spectrum are sending mixed signals to the public they are meant to influence. The “suit” no longer conveys confidence and a solid public image; a decade of broken promises, lies, and marital infidelity and embezzlement schemes by politicians has turned the suit into burnt toast. As for the grunge and tough guy look at the other end, it has lost resonance with much of the grassroots population for many of the same reasons.

If we truly want to tap into that population of grassroots gun owners who are not NRA members it is time for the NRA leadership to take stock of their costumes and message. President Obama’s counselors understand costuming and they’ve re-crafted his image and delivery. On the news networks I’ve been watching him walk, go up and down stairs, alter his clothing (very slightly); both his delivery and his message have changed subtly and become more effective with many Americans. Neither our NRA suit and red ties nor our grunge members have a voice with a large segment of the millions of gun owners we are trying to reach. The NRA leadership needs to take a few lessons and maybe hire some experts to begin making changes. Remember, we don’t need to convince the gun owners who already belong to the NRA; we need to convince the gun owners who are not part of the NRA.

If you hunt, or just own a firearm and shoot at the local range, and you are not a member of the NRA what would it take for you to become a member? Think about it.

Annual Predator Hunt

2011-01-14T22:39:00.002-06:00

When I look outside there is an ever deepening world of white. Snow is piled up from snow plows, my snow blower piles more snow on those piles, and of course nature adds to the pile. Before winter hit I should have spent a little more time hunting. Winter was slow arriving and I could have gotten in a few more bird hunts, but once winter was here it planted both feet firmly on the prairie and its fierce winds, with swirling devils of snow announced its plans to stay. I cleaned my guns and put them away.

For a lot of hunters however, winter does not mean the end of hunting. This weekend the Finley Wildlife and Gun club is hosting their annual predator hunt. Hunters enter the competition by paying a small entry fee and the hunter (or team of two hunters) who brings in the most coyotes and foxes wins the cash. Sometimes, the club gives away door prizes but the annual predator hunt is not about door prizes and the hunting so much as it is an opportunity for hunters coming from the surrounding small towns to hunt coyotes during the day and in the evening enjoy a meal of venison chili that is served by our club members.

A person would think that with all those hunters roaming the surrounding countryside a lot of coyotes would be killed. Not so, most of the hunters don’t bring in a single coyote, they pay their entry fee and show up for the camaraderie and food.

When I first joined the Finley Wildlife and Gun Club I avoided the annual predator hunt because these mid-level predators are necessary in any eco system so I didn’t support hunting them, besides, the coyote is my totem animal. Killing the predators, I firmly believed, was opening the flood gates for the growth of unwanted scavenger species. But the predator hunt, I now realize, has about as much population impact as pouring a shot of water from a full bucket of water. The number of coyotes has increased exponentially throughout the region and their nightly yipping at the edge of town is an affirmation of nature’s nearness. Interestingly, with the increase of coyotes there has been a flood of rural legends, and one of the most popular is that ranchers have reported finding coyote dens with several dozen fawn skulls outside its entrance. Without supportive physical evidence and little contrary to the claims these stories are hard to disprove. To date not a single “witness” has come forward with the needed evidence, such as the location of these dens. Frequently these claims come from hunters who blame coyotes’ deer depredation for their failure to see (kill) deer during the hunting season. Now, however, they are being proven wrong by a University of North Dakota study of whitetail mortality. Fifty whitetail deer (mostly does) that were fitted with telemetry collars showed that hunters accounted for only four does of the dozen deer killed in the first phase of the study. Hunters just weren’t effective—the deer outsmarted the hunters! As for the biggest deer killer—it was the automobile, not predators.

This common coyote/deer misinformation reared its head at a December public forum for North Dakota Game & Fish officials hosted by the wildlife club. The coyote predation question was a central topic and the claim was made that area ranchers had found coyote dens surrounded by fawn skulls. The problem is that as with most rural or urban legends, the story is one that is passed on from one person to another and there is no photographic evidence or an actual person who can produce the den. The wildlife officials did admit that coyotes are responsible for a lot of deer (and other game) depredations, but there are more “tales” than facts. There was one point that both the wildlife officials and the audience agreed on and that was the number of coyotes in the area had increased and that more hunting pressure was needed. I don’t know how much of an impact our annual hunt will have this year because of the sub-zero cold and deep snow, but there will be predator hunters who will try. I suspect that those who benefit most from this year’s hunt will be local towing services and farmers who pull hunters’ trucks out of drifted snow—for a price. Myself, I’ll just enjoy the chili.

Holiday Break Over

2011-01-14T22:30:00.000-06:00

Sometimes the best thing we can do for ourselves is step away from the pressures we continue to place on ourselves and just think about ourselves and everyone around us. Over the holidays that is exactly what I did. Several times I did some writing and at one point I even printed it out and did some editing. Then I put it away. But, now that I have had my winter vacation from work I am looking forward to getting back to my writing.
glg

Differences & How One Method of Argument is Used Against Hunting

2010-12-21T23:12:00.007-06:00

Responses to my recent posts have given me reason to think about some of the assertions that I made, primarily in the area of verbal and writing skills. NorCal pointed out some very interesting facts from the USFWS and her own experience that run counter my assertions. I’ll admit to being passionate about my belief in the need for learning verbal and writing skills, regardless of the intended profession. Also, because I did teach Technical and Business Writing, both as a lecturer (Northland Community & Technical College) and at UND, it is a field in which I have some experience.

While teaching, I amassed a sizable amount of research suggesting that companies (English speaking and English ESL) were struggling with a need for employees to have better communication skills (English). This was true across the business spectrum. As a result of our discussion here I became curious as to how much the environment has changed and I did a twenty minute online search, without using any academic search engines, and found an impressive number of studies, all concerned about the problem of a lack of verbal and writing skills among employees and prospective employees. One of the quickest scans for information is the PEW Project’s studies on the problem, but other studies, including the 2004 College Board’s National Commission on Writing, all present an increased need for these skills, noting that two-thirds of all salaried workers in large companies are in positions that require writing skills. While I was teaching at Northland and UND one of the exercises I gave my students was to go through the Sunday newspaper’s “Jobs” section and determine how many advertised positions required good verbal and writing skills (communication skills) for the position. The results were impressive, driving the point home for the students, because the percentage hovered around 80% of the listed skilled jobs and it soared to 90% when we factored in ads that did not list that requirement but were for the same type of job in which other companies did list it. I am sure the percentage will vary by region but it will remain impressive.

So, the need for better communication skills exists throughout both the blue and white collar communities. But, the objections NorCal raised is that the hunters she frequently interacts with, while being accomplished in their fields and possessing high levels of non communication-driven skills, did not necessarily have the higher communication skills. She rightly points out that the lack of these skills does not reflect on their intelligence or any other social measurement, only that their careers have not called for the communication skills. There is, I believe, a separation between her experience in the hunting community and my experience and it has to do with my having interacted more with men (and women) with higher levels of communication skills in hunting camps both here and in Africa. Even though many of these hunters were from traditional blue collar jobs, because of their more developed vocational and communication skills, they were more successful in their fields and tended to rise in position and salary. I am not sure how this translates into the broader spectrum of the outdoor community but I do think it is worth pursuing, if for no other reason than it will help us to better understand the role of our media. I will offer my opinion, however, and it is only my opinion, that as higher education reacts to the growth of social media, and its dependency on more finely developed communication skills, the shift to more required communication studies as the basis of more disciplines will spread exponentially at all education levels. I doubt that many of us will recognize exactly what is being taught as communication skills, but it will be there. Every aspect of communication technology is changing so quickly that unless a person is riding on the leading edge of the wave they are in danger of being left behind.

NorCal does raise a wonderful point about personal experience (specifically hers) not being subject to debate. I differ. I maintain that all provable personal experience is axiomatic to any argument. I use, as an example, an apple on a table. In one test, if two hungry people walk into a room in which a single apple, of which they have differing opinions of its edibility, based on personal experience, has been placed on the center of the table, and they sit in chairs placed on opposite sides of the table in such a way that each individual can only see one side of the apple, personal experience will dictate how each person relates to the apple. If one person maintains that in his/her personal experience that type of apple is crisp and delicious and the other maintains that in his/her experience the apple is mushy and is distasteful then the two obviously disagree on the apple’s quality and should try to reach a resolution. If both maintain that their personal experience is not subject to debate and refuse to debate the apple’s merits then only one person will eat the apple and the other will remain hungry. But, if both agree to debate their personal experience, accepting each as axiomatic of the apple’s merit or lack of merit, and each presents the circumstances of personal experience and why each believes the other is wrong, and then defends each assertion with deductive reasoning so that each axiom is presented equally, discussed, and equally reduced to form one truth from the two; they will reach a finite sentence that will be a proof of the argument (discussion). At the end either the two will share the apple and both have something to eat, or they will both leave the room hungry but in agreement. This can only be true if both agree to reach the finite sentence. If they cannot reach that sentence then the discussion will continue until the apple spoils or one of them tires and leaves the room. (Think Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Now, what does this have to do with hunting? If we understand the principle of the apple then whenever we enter a debate with someone about hunting, wildlife management, or any related issue, if the principle of a deductive series of statements to reach a finite sentence by virtue of the provable statement (axiom) is not present, there will not be a successful conclusion with a finite sentence. How do we know the deductive series is being avoided? Simple, if the other person’s argument includes statements outside of axiomatic “personal experience” or science (soft or hard) but are emotive and cannot be proven or disproved, then the debate cannot reach a successful conclusion. A successful conclusion is when both parties of the discussion agree to the same action by reaching the finite sentence. This is why debaters from the hunting community rarely (if ever) best Wayne Pacelle or his compatriots. He is well trained in the art of argument (debate) and always includes elements in the debate that preclude the finite statement, which creates doubt about the validity of his opponent’s argument. In other words, for every one axiomatic element introduced by the pro hunting side, Pacelle (or others of his ilk and training) introduces an un-provable emotive combined with a provable element, claiming both are axiomatic of the same element. The pro hunting side is always left with the task of trying to disprove one part of the element while reducing the other, which is impossible and creates conflict because reduction requires truth which, as Pacelle and others know, will imply proof of the emotive even though it is only implied proof and is wrong.

Anyway, that’s my take on the role of personal experience but it helps me illustrate why I believe the hunting community loses so many arguments.

I can be very tiring, eh?

Any thoughts out there?

Best
glg

More On Media Quality-Responsibility

2010-12-14T23:50:00.002-06:00

In NorCal Cazadora’s reply to my last post she covers some important points from the USFWS 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife–Associated Recreation report's statistical data as it relates to the education level of hunters. I think we’re in agreement on the need for a higher standard in outdoor media, and when I look at the numbers she quoted (and the others in the report) I believe it is a clear case of the numbers proving the point of my argument—the quality of the material being published and/or broadcast is directly influencing the future of fishing and hunting. I believe that the less appeal published and broadcast material has to the better educated segments of the population the less likely members of that segment are to be exposed to the positives of hunting. As we lose elements of this segment of our population we lose support from incrementally larger segments of the non-hunting population simply by the influence of one over the other.

An interesting example of how our media functions is in a report published jointly by Responsive Management and The NSSF, The Future of Hunting and the Shooting Sports. The report contains fascinating corollaries between percentages of hunter retention, new hunters and non-hunting support of hunting. The report takes the USFWS report’s numbers and plugs them in with other studies to present a broad picture of what we need to do to preserve hunting (and shooting). In one section it does point out that 94% of active hunters watched a TV program on hunting and 22% were prompted to go hunting after watching the program. As for print media, 78% of active hunters read about hunting and 15% were inspired to go hunting after reading about it. To me, this reinforces my argument about the need for quality in outdoor media. Our work is reaching a very significant portion of the hunting public and therefore we have an obligation to maintain a level of excellence.

NorCal does make one assertion that I would debate—I don’t believe we can make a blanket statement that hunters overwhelmingly come from professions that don’t focus on or require high-level verbal skills. Now, things might have changed (and probably have) in the fifteen years since I last ran a hunting camp, but my experience was that hunting had a fairly equal mix of professions so I don’t think we can sort them out in that way. The exception being (as the numbers point out) waterfowl hunting, which has always drawn heavily from the erudite population and I am convinced this has more to do with the requirement to think about the hunt than some other mystical qualification. (It is unfortunate that waterfowl hunting has taken such a serious black eye in recent days.) I also believe that the professions she listed as examples do require high-level verbal skills. In today’s environment the most successful entrepreneurs, engineers, etc., are those men and women whose command of language (spoken and written) enables them to clearly communicate their ideas, whether across the internet, or the board room. Recently, I read a report (which I have since lost, but I’m sure the data is on the internet) that managers were less tolerant of text-speak than ever before and expect their employees to write cognizant, well organized and thoughtful reports whether in email or on paper. The reason for this demand is quite simple—our litigious society. As society becomes more complex the demands of language are going to increase, not decrease and the question has become one of the tool by which we will receive that language. I do agree with her closing statement that there is a widespread tendency to judge people by how articulate they are, therefore, I do believe that the statement proves the proposition.

Be all that as it may, I fully stand behind my previous post and my argument. If we take the USFWS report at face value and do not apply other studies of hunter/shooter/angler behaviors to understanding the meaning of the numbers and what they represent then we are doing a disservice to the men and women who are the angling/hunting/shooting public. If we assume, based on the report, that the majority of hunters and anglers are less educated and by extrapolation therefore less interested in the future of the environment, and the outdoor sports, and consequently dumb down our work, or insist that our contributors do, then we are adding force to what must become a self-fulfilling prophesy—that American hunting is being pushed out of the model created by Theodore Roosevelt (and others) and into the European model.

What do you think?
glg

My Response to My Outdoor Media Question

2010-12-07T23:03:00.003-06:00

I’ve had so many great comments on my questions about the responsibility in media I think it is time for me to comment.

I think it is a safe assumption that a significant percentage of the audience for outdoor programming is NOT the hunting intelligentsia, but on the same thought line I believe it is very dangerous to make the assumption that the viewing audience is somehow intellectually challenged or lacks the benefits of higher education. For nearly 40 years I have watched, studied and researched our body of literature, and watched this trend of our better writers (broadcasting included) struggle with the insistence that the majority of hunters, shooters, anglers, et al. lack the formal education, or are somehow hampered with the lack of intellectual capacity to understand complex issues affecting the outdoors, or are incapable of grasping the nuance of fine literature.

When we analyze the writings of many of the anti-hunting authors a recurring theme is that the hunting/fishing/shooting community is populated by men and women generally lacking a high school diploma. These writers encourage their readers to believe that hunters/anglers/shooters lack the ability to exhibit compassion for wildlife and cannot grasp the ethical analysis of hunting/angling and the environment. When these writers attack hunting and hunters, angling and anglers, for proof of their assertions, they frequently reference our own media! They focus on broadcast programming’s excessively poor language, outrageous high-five behavior and fishing shows that depict casual indifference to fish being returned to the water—none of which are factual representations of the outdoor community—but they persist in our media because we allow them to.

I think an excellent exercise is to actually conduct a comparison between the housing/education/income statistics (discounting the present economic distress) and the audience statistics of Sportsman Network. There is a very interesting corollary between the data and it suggests that if we examine the characteristics of home ownership and then plug those characteristics into the characteristics of the Sportsman Network’s audience we’ll arrive at a result that proves that the greater percentage of men and women participating in hunting/fishing/shooting are better educated, and by extension better read, and have a much better grasp of the issues (political and scientific) surrounding the environment than the general population.

My question is why, when we consider all of the available information, do publishers, programmers, producers, media buyers, personalities, and even our industry and media leadership, insist on playing to the lowest perceived audience denominator and not to an actual, common denominator that would put forward a better image of anglers and hunters? Is it money? Is it fear of a vocal minority within the audience? Or, is it insecurity within themselves and their own hierarchy? I believe it is a combination of these factors.

Our industry, most certainly our media, must come to grips with the fact that this is not the middle of the last century when the chasm between the pro and con was so wide the actions of the antis were largely perceived as the mumblings of a disgruntled minority. The Silver Springs monkeys, Peter Singer, Edward Abby, Cleveland Amory and a handful of other activists were instrumental in refocusing national attention on our relationship to animals, and ultimately on hunting. By 1990, and into this decade, as tools of the media began to radically change at an increasingly faster pace, it is interesting to note that the outdoor media’s adoption of these tools has been slower than the anti-movement and at the same time, as a defensive measure akin to circling the wagons, the leadership of the varied arms of the outdoor industry (manufacturing, sales, management and media) with support from many of the individuals within those arms, began to insist on a Golden Age, or perhaps more commonly expressed as “the Good ‘ole Days” of the outdoors as having been the ideal before the interference of environmentalist and animal rights activists, often blurring the line between the actual role of the hunting community in establishing awareness of the need for environmentalism and the emergence of the extremists. If we want a date for this claimed interference perhaps the earliest would be 1949 and the publication of Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac (A Sand County Almanac; with essays on conservation from Round River), but a later date that is often popularly cited as the opening of the environmentalist movement is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (Silent Spring), published in 1962. But, if we take the long look at our nation’s history of hunting and fishing we are forced to admit that the claimed “Golden Age” never existed except for a short time in post-colonial America. Neither the populations of the species nor the availability to the hunt by the general population existed in a combined condition that provided the conditions asserted in the Golden Age mythology. This is not to say that hunting, and excellent hunting, did not exist because it did, but it was not universally available throughout the population.

Another interesting, and often ignored truth, is in the alleged numbers of species that were exterminated or nearly so, in westward migration. Outside of a few well publicized species (buffalo, pronghorn, passenger pigeon, etc.), if you have read the journals of the Lewis & Clark expedition and not the “cleaned up” versions found in most libraries, the stunning truth is the expedition very nearly starved to death for lack of game! At one point Clark (I believe, perhaps Lewis) shot a doe deer and before he could reach the animal his starving men fell on it, and in their frenzied desperation for food ripped the carcass to pieces and devoured it raw! Yet, as recently as an outdoor writers’ conference in Columbus, Missouri an exhibit of the L&C expedition completely glossed over the expedition’s trials.

Except for a few familiar species most wildlife was scarce. Some anti-hunting literature argues that the colonial and post-colonial writers’ gushing about the presence of wildlife is proof that hunting has destroyed wildlife populations. These writers ignore the fact that these colonial writers were promoting interest in colonizing by poor Europeans, or in the post-colonial period to entice the stalled westward migration to begin moving. Another important argument, and one that is seldom heard, is that the presence of even a small population of game would be beyond the experience of most of the colonists, and in their enthusiasm would exaggerate the amount of game—a condition that still exists among those of us who are outdoor writers! Another rarely citied argument is that as civilization pushed into the wilderness the wildlife pushed deeper into the forest. The most common argument by the anti-hunting community maintains that America’s wildlife was completely plundered by market hunting and prior to that the landscape was teeming with wildlife. This is an assertion that is not unique to North America. Africa, Europe, Asia, they were presented as having vast number of ALL species. It is simply not true. There were vast herds of specific species (American bison, African wildebeest, etc.) and it is true that these herds suffered from the ravages of market hunting, but it was largely a pre-refrigeration phenomenon that corresponded to the transformation of social structure to urban areas to support industrialization. As refrigerated rail cars opened the possibilities of moving domestic meats to distant markets, whether in Africa or North America, the need for market hunting largely collapsed, although vestiges of it remained as species specific, although even this ended, first in North America and later in Africa.

The mythos of the Golden Age or good ‘ole Days is that there was a period in early to mid 20th century America in which game was universally abundant, a hand-shake sealed all bargains, neighbor trusted neighbor, land was generally open to hunting, the public eagerly supported hunting and nearly everyone hunted, and was a gun owner. All of these are false. Today, in fact, we live in a period of the greatest amount of hunting opportunity this nation has enjoyed since the brief post-colonial period. There are trouble spots and most of us know where they are, but if you are at least older than 55, and hunted in the 1950s and sixties, chances are you remember a time when finding a place to hunt was problematic, but today there are PLOTS, CRP and other lands open that were previously closed. The amount of game is staggering. Old timers here tell me that in the alleged “good ole’ days” they never saw a deer, grouse or partridge and now all are abundant. The Golden Age was a state of mind. Between 1835, which is the birth of what is today’s outdoor writing, and July 2, 1961, American outdoor writing reached its zenith and was a major part of the literary canon, but by the end of the Vietnam War that position had collapsed under the weight of changes in the social landscape, and rather than face these changes and deal with them our entire industry circled the wagons, giving the writers of the anti-hunting, anti-gun and animal rights movements the room they needed to assault public opinion.

My point is that every time a writer decides NOT to write a think piece on environmental issues, or puts an outdoor short story in a file drawer believing no outdoor magazine will publish it, or decides to simplify a text because the editors maintain the readers can’t understand it, or they don’t want to read something “that” complex, or a TV personality mixes metaphors, confuses verb tenses, talks like he/she flunked seventh grade English—three times, and does a sophomoric high five dance around a newly killed animal, the future of fishing and hunting are each cast that much further in doubt. There is no substitute for good writing and there is no justification for poor programming. Ironically, when we go back in the history of outdoor literature we discover that only a handful of decades ago excellence was the standard, mediocrity was not abided, and outdoor literature appeared in literature text books.

Interesting, isn’t it?

glg

Snow Plow and Small Town Living

2010-12-05T19:41:00.002-06:00

I had planned to take an afternoon off this weekend and do some late season pheasant hunting. First, I had to clear the snow that had accumulated Thursday night and most of Friday. It wouldn’t be such a bad job if I didn’t have an ongoing battle with George, head of the City Shop and primary snow plow driver. In a lot of ways I find the whole thing amusing and somewhat reminiscent of the rural mail delivery madman Crumb Petrie in the 1988 Chevy Chase film Funny Farm. In the film Petrie drives over the mailbox, throws the mail at Chase’s character and commits a number of other hilarious acts. Our George hasn’t driven over our mailbox (we don’t have one), but he has buried our driveway in up to three feet of snow on a good day (for George). After he passes with the snow plow I can count on at least half-an-hour, if not more, digging out the driveway entrance—even with my snow blower! The problem is simple enough, George must clear the road and when he passes my drive his plow mounds up the snow.

George is actually a pretty nice guy and we are both members of the Finley Wildlife and Gun Club, but I can’t help but picture a slight upturn of his mouth when he first eyes my driveway and slowly, carefully, and corresponding to the distance closed as he nears my driveway, his features begin to take on a distinctive Snidely Whiplash sneer as the snow that had once blanketed the street is scraped from the asphalt and gloriously pilled in my drive--the new guy's drive. Sometimes, while standing in my kitchen looking out the window and watching George bearing down on my driveway that I had spent half-an-hour clearing (with my snow blower), I want to grab my cane and run into the snow-covered yard and shout at him to spare my driveway, or maybe chuck a few snowballs at the massive plow. Instead, I wonder if my insulated coveralls have finished drying and whether I’ve got any Grabber foot warmers to tuck in my boots while I dig out the driveway--again.

Such is life in a small, rural community in North Dakota.

Maybe a pheasant hunt for Cookie on Tuesday.
Cheers,
Galen

Outdoor Media Comment

2010-11-30T21:21:00.002-06:00

In my last post I struck a nerve with a number of people. Not only on this blog but in wider circles, and I have had a surprising number of comments from some surprising individuals. Most of the comments have an underlying agreement that outdoor TV programs (and online video programming) need improvement, and the suggestions range from content to language with every stop in between. Not everyone agrees, however, that the outdoor broadcast media is having any effect outside of our community. Again, the opinions run the gauntlet from “they are killing us by rednecking us” to “no one really cares.”

I will take some time and look deeper into this issue. When we begin to examine “our” broadcast media should we apply the axiom abusus non tollit usum to the outdoor media? Just because both the standard (language) and the intent of some requirements (blaze orange) have been abused in the past does not alter either the requirement (blaze orange) or the standard (language) for the present. In short, the abuse does not create new rules—although a few comments lean in that direction.

Among the cursory things I have done is to look at the language of various codes of ethics or behavior among some of the outdoor media organizations, and other than a vague language referring to “truth” there are no firm governing rules. In fact, if one took the time to analyze the language of these “codes” they would be found to be archaic. Reading them reminded me of the “Pirate’s Code” from the Pirates of the Caribbean in which various characters, at opportune moments, recite the code as being “guidelines” or “rules” as each circumstance was deemed best by and for the speaker. It seems to me this is exactly the way we want to treat outdoor media, particularly the broadcast side—we’ll apply rules or guides as best suits the speaker—not the sport.

This is a complex issue and one that has been the bane of the outdoor media, and surprisingly to many outdoor writers, reaching back to the 19th century. I can accurately state that the question of quality in outdoor media can be traced back (in this country) to the antebellum years when Henry Herbert (his profile appears on every cover of The Pines Review) was writing his articles on the “sporting life,” establishing the art and form of modern outdoor magazine writing, he was also blasting other, emerging outdoor writers, for what he maintained was “dishonesty” in their writing.

I hope to read more comments on this issue because these comments help guide me when I am doing my research, by providing questions that I don’t think of, and for which I can then search for answers.
Best,
glg

Responsibility in Outdoor Media

2010-11-27T00:27:00.004-06:00

Today I received my replacement glasses! While I was waiting on my glasses I did follow Holly’s advice and buy a pair of those magnifying glasses for reading but they were only minimal help. I need prism glasses and the magnifying jobs didn’t quite work for me. All’s well now.

While waiting I haven’t been slothing. I’ve used the time away from my office and keyboard to cut firewood and keep the walks clear of snow by use of the snow blower. Also, while doing these chores, I have an advantage—I don’t work fast and I take a lot of breaks, which gives me ample time to think. I have a more or less forced pattern of work-rest-work-rest and during the numerous rest periods I will often get out my notebook and scribble notes. Don’t get any ideas that the note writing is some mystical, literary help thing. My memory sucks, so when I think of something I write it down or I’ll think of it again later and swear it is a new idea!

Something I have been thinking about, and writing notes on, is how much influence outdoor television actually does have on future hunters. The source of this is an ongoing debate in The Pines Review,
(http://issuu.com/thepinesreview/docs/the_pines_review_vol._iii_no_3_autumn_2010) my little literary journal for the outdoor media and industry. The debate is between California-based outdoor writer Jim Matthews and Michelle Scheuermann, who is the Director of Communications for Sportsman Channel TV. The debate is over (of course) the quality of outdoor programs. Matthews hates it and Michelle defends it. Recently, Holly Heyser (http://norcalcazadora.blogspot.com) commented to me by email that while she was watching some outdoor programming she became disgusted with the mangling of the English language. Specifically, she was frustrated by the constant butchery of verb tense and number by the “stars.” Her displeasure is nothing new from people who care about language. This is the foundation of most arguments against outdoor television, and a second argument is that the programs are unrealistic. To one degree or another, the claim can be made that we turn a blind eye to both problems and grudgingly admit that the problems are endemic to the medium and not going away. Then, at the start of this deer season, a dinner table discussion made me question that blind eye.

Most of you will recall that I recently wrote about my nephew’s first duck hunt and the adventure it became when Cookie battled a raccoon. Move forward from duck season to the opening of deer season. My father-in-law, Don, decided it was a good time for Alex, his grandson, to be exposed to deer hunting. Good idea. I wasn’t with Don and Alex for any of the hunts but I did hear about Alex’s reaction to being told he had to wear blaze orange. He was appalled and argued vehemently that he shouldn’t have to wear blaze orange. Now, a kid on his first big game hunt is usually pretty excited and when his grandfather is teaching him the ropes it is all going to be a cherished memory, or at least it should be, but outdoor television had so corrupted Alex’s view of deer hunting that Don found himself competing against the “experts on TV” and those “experts” don’t wear blaze orange. Alex finally caved on the issue because it was blaze orange or stay home.

When this incident was passed on to me (in the form of advice on what to write about in the next issue of The Pines Review) I didn’t quite buy Alex’s argument and offered the opinion that Alex was stretching things and perhaps he was referring to archery hunters. I was then reminded that Alex is much smarter than most kids his age and he is also addicted to weekend outdoor programming. If he is not fishing or hunting he can often be found glued to the television the same way I used to be glued to Saturday morning cartoons. I decided to check out his argument. Guess what? In fully two out of three programs the “stars” were not wearing any blaze orange even though they were rifle hunting. Some of the hunters in these programs were on private land where the safety vests are not required, others were in hides, a couple hunters were in tree stands and one was on an elk hunt that was on private land. The programs where the stars consistently wore blaze orange were obviously on public lands where blaze orange is required by law. Alex is able to distinguish between hunting on private lands where the blaze orange is not required and public lands where it is, and it is an issue made more complex for him because he and his grandfather were hunting on private land—Don’s family farm—therefore if the reason the TV hunters don’t wear blaze orange is they are on private land, and Alex and his grandfather would be hunting on private land, there was no reason for them to wear blaze orange.

I think we’ve got a problem here because it is not limited to the broadcasting medium. I went through a number of magazines and for every one photograph of a hunter wearing his blaze orange there are eight to ten of hunters without it! Even Ron Spomer, an outdoor writer for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect because of his language skills and knowledge of hunting, appears in a photo for his shooting column (“Shooting,” Christensen’s Hunting Illustrated), posed sans blaze orange, with a shooting stick as if shooting at a big game animal. Admittedly, many of the hunting articles (and photos) were about either muzzle loader hunting or bow hunting, but not all. In my short survey I found most photos were of hunters in camouflage, whether posed for a trophy photo, or posed as if hunting.

I do plan to do a more thorough examination of the outdoor media on this problem but also the by-laws and ethics of the outdoor press organizations. I am curious, however, what you think. For myself, I see an element of a growing problem with many new members of the outdoor media whose lack of a formal education in media law, ethics, practical journalism and creative writing/film/broadcasting, is contributing to increasing misinformation about hunting and fishing by many non-hunters/anglers.

Or, should I find another windmill because this one has First Amendment written on it?

I am curious about your thoughts.

Limited Posting For a Bit

2010-11-14T23:08:00.002-06:00

Hey Guys, Due to my having lost my reading/working glasses I am unable to do much posting because, frankly, I have trouble seeing the screen. I guess it is time for me to get a big flat screen monitor.
Will post when I am not seeing fuzzy double, triple or whatever that is.
glg

Ted Nugent in the News--Again

2010-10-27T23:59:00.003-05:00

I don’t know how many of you caught this but The Nuge has made the news again and this time it is in South Dakota. Apparently Nugent went pheasant hunting on a private hunting preserve (Dakota Hills Shooting Preserve) before appearing at a Second Amendment rally sponsored by Citizens for Liberty, which is a Rapid City tea party affiliate. According to Kevin Woster, a reporter for the Rapid City Journal, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks is investigating whether Nugent violated South Dakota Game & Fish law by hunting in South Dakota. Apparently, South Dakota and California are part of a multi-state cooperative agreement that if a person is convicted of a game violation AND HAS THEIR LICENSE REVOKED they cannot hunt in states that participate in the agreement (which is a good thing).

Now, let’s get this straight—the agreement specifically states that the person convicted of the game violation must have their license revoked. After reading everything I could locate on Nugent’s California episode I cannot find anything stating that Nugent had his license revoked. I am not saying that he didn’t, I am saying that I can’t find anything that indicates he did! So, if Nugent did not have his license revoked in California then he DID NOT violate South Dakota laws.

What I am reading in the Rapid City Journal is a deliberate attempt to discredit Nugent and the Second Amendment rally’s organizers. Whether the investigation began with the GF&P launching an investigation on its own, or being prodded into the investigation by outside sources is the core of the argument. Unless Nugent’s lawyers were crafty enough to have a significant portion of the punishment levied against Nugent buried and hidden from the public record then this entire case is MaCarthyism harassment targeting Nugent to discredit hunting (and the Second Amendment Rally) by discrediting Nugent. I have not had time to pull up any of the past writings of the author for a credibility check but this new episode in the life and times of Ted Nugent reads like skunk stink. If you are interested in the link to the story, here it is. http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/article_793b6f6e-e0ab-11df-afa1-001cc4c002e0.html.

If I am correct in my assertion, that this issue is skunk stink, how do we, as members of the hunting community, deal with this? Do we turn our backs on it, comfortable in the knowledge that if Nugent did nothing wrong in South Dakota the issue will quietly go away, as most do? But what if the investigation turns up a real violation? What if Nugent did have his license revoked and it was somehow kept out of the press and now we learn an ugly truth? Do we ignore it and hope it goes away, which is the usual course of action.

My answer is “No!” to both results. If it turns out that a case of MaCarthyism harassment was leveled against Nugent because he was in Rapid City to participate in a Tea Party like movement and the action was intended to somehow discredit him—then everyone who participated—from the GF&P employees to the Rapid City Journal must have their feet held to the fire of legal and moral inquiry and suffer the appropriate legal punishment and a lesson in morality spanking. If it means that some GF&P employees lose their jobs because of their malfeasance then let it happen. If a newspaper reporter loses his job for participating in the “creation” of a story to manipulate public opinion, let him join the unemployed.

On the flip side of the same token, if Ted Nugent did have his lawyers hide part of his punishment from the public view and then did knowingly violate South Dakota GF&P law, then he must be excommunicated from the circle of hunting communicators. Past good works are no salve for present misdeeds.

The traditional course of action for the hunting community, in either case, is to pull the wagons a little tighter, huddle under the tarpaulins and ponchos and wait for the storm to finish blowing, and then see how much was lost, and then try to go on as if nothing happened. That approach is counter-productive. For once let’s see the outdoor community flex its muscle and be willing to throw a few punches at the villain—whether in our camp or the other.
glg

Hunting In Mild Weather, Cats that are Pets, and Feral Cats

2010-10-24T01:13:00.002-05:00

Cookie and I have tried a couple of times to get on some grouse but the mild weather and hunting pressure has made them as nervous as a virgin when the fleet's in and they flush just about as far as I can see! As for the ducks, they aren't too interested in moving around much. But there is hope, there is weather starting to appear. I got a little taste of it today and I am hoping for more later this week. I much prefer to hunt birds when there is a strong chill and little wind, just a soft breeze for Cookie's nose.

After short hunting attempts I've returned home to renew my efforts at getting the yard ready for winter. That means pulling the root veggies and all of the flowers. I always feel guilty pulling flowers that still have some color in them so I clip the ones that are not gone and put them over on the little graves of my cats. Funny how my cats generate such feelings yet when I see feral cats I have the exact opposite. Feral cats destroy ground nesting bird populations and can even wreck the cottontail population. I am always amazed at the people who truly believe they are doing their cats a favor by dumping them in the country. They are often the same people you see signing up to protest hunting. This disconnect in their brains is the source of so much damage in nature, yet when they are confronted with this fact they pass it off as lies to protect hunting. The root of the problem? Some say it is in our classrooms and perhaps they are right, but is it the teacher or the support being given the teacher? I am not talking about pay and benefits but the parental support. If the only parents in the classrooms are of the same sort of mindset as the people who dump their cats to "save them from being killed" while the parents who know better, whether hunters or just more informed individuals, stay home because they don't want to be bothered--what is going to be taught? Perhaps another case of "we've met the enemy in the mirror?"
Think about it.

New Issue of Pines Review

2010-10-20T21:20:00.005-05:00

One of my projects is The Pines Review: Literary Journal of the Art and Literature of the Outdoor Sports. I started this project several years ago and each issue it has grown and become a stronger publication. I am pleased with the direction it has taken this past year and I know the next year is giong to be even better.

The review can be read online from Issuu or printed copies can be ordered from Magloud.

The Review is a project that is close to my heart and everything I value in the outdoors and it takes a lot of work, which takes me away from this blog because I am an office of one. If you get an opportunity to check it out, please do. I think you'll find something worth reading. So, take a look at The Review and feel free to let me know what you think.

Here is the link to the online version:
http://issuu.com/thepinesreview/docs/the_pines_review_vol._iii_no_3_autumn_2010?viewMode=magazine

Here's the widget to the printed verson:

The Pines Review Issue 5: Vol III No 3 Autumn The Pines Review

This issue examines Izaak Walton's "The Compleat Angler" and its impact on our culture.Outdoor Writer Tammy Sapp examines the myth of the number of women in the outdoor Sports.Dennis Dunn completed Archery Hunting's North American Grand Slam using a bow without any sights. Dunn's book about his 4…

Bluebird Days

2010-10-16T00:57:00.003-05:00

We have had nothing but bluebird days. Some wind but fairly warm. I am planning to take Cookie out for pheasant and duck this weekend but without a little weather--anyone's guess.

I just finished reading the proof copy of "The Pines Review" and I'll type the corrections in sometime tomorrow, after my hunting--I hope. When it is ready I'll post the link here.

Have a good weekend of getting outdoors. I hope everyone is able to get in some fishing or hunting this weekend.

glg

The Adventure Begins--

2010-10-15T00:16:00.004-05:00

First, my apology for promising a post and then disappearing. I just had some things to attend to and now that they are done—the story, edited for posting. glg

The Adventure Begins---

The outdoors is, or should always be, an adventure. There should be an element of surprise on every trip. When our hunting or fishing trips go exactly as planned then in time the outdoors becomes the mundane and we find ourselves turning away from nature. I don’t worry about my trips becoming mundane. If I can’t find some way to keep it exciting then nature has a way of lending a helping hand. Here’s what happened two weeks ago.

My brother-in-law, Ken, has been teaching his nine year-old son, Alex, the basics of shooting a shotgun and introducing him to hunting, so I decided that it would be a good thing for me to step in and offer to teach Alex some of the finer points of duck hunting. Now Ken has some hunting experience but he’s never set a spread of decoys, used a call, or enjoyed the frustrating thrill of stalking mallards on a prairie slough (pot hole). So, I offered to introduce Ken and Alex to duck hunting. The first surprise that morning was me—I was up on time and picked them up on time. After stowing their gear I explained to Alex that the big bag was duck decoys. When everyone was settled, we headed for my wife’s family farm (they lease out the tillable land) and the farmstead’s four sloughs: the north slough, the south slough, the corner slough, and the roadside slough.

The north slough is my favorite for setting a spread of decoys. The south side of the slough is the treeline boundary of the long abandoned farmstead. Although the farmstead’s buildings are in general decay from their abandonment, the presence of the house, granaries, one-time chicken coop and of course the large, traditional barn all influence the flights of ducks nearing the slough. To the north and west of the slough are tilled fields, and on the east are a few more trees that curve into the treeline. Put together, the slough sits in a perfect tree-formed funnel and with a small spread of decoys along the southwest banks the birds turn, cup their wings, and drop in—a picturesque setting and within easy range. At least that is when everything is going right. Nothing went right.

The reason for setting decoys on the north slough is it is perfectly positioned to intercept and decoy birds being flushed off sloughs in the surrounding countryside. Within a three mile radius of the farmstead there are a dozen sloughs that hold anywhere from a handful to a hundred ducks each day of the season—when the birds are leaving Canada and northern North Dakota lakes. On any weekend of the waterfowl season hunters like to cruise the back roads and flush birds from the sloughs, shooting at ducks as they flush. The ducks, depending on wind, flush either north or south (rarely east or west) and either direction sends them to our area and the north slough is one the ducks look over, giving me the chance to decoy them.

But, that only works if there are ducks on the other sloughs, and I always get a good idea of ducks in the area by looking over the sloughs we pass on the drive out. On that morning we didn’t see any ducks. Not good. I was determined, however, so I drove to the slough, passing the roadside slough—no ducks, and a half-mile from the south slough—no ducks. Humm, this wasn’t looking very promising. A youngster sitting in the cattails and watching decoys bob in the water could get very bored, very quickly. Usually, when I approach the north slough to set my decoys I can hear ducks on the water. This morning there was complete silence. Curious, I drove to the top of a small rise where I could look down on the slough. It was empty. I decided to see if we could flush some ducks from the corner slough. It would often hold a few birds when sloughs closer to the roads were empty.

Once near the corner slough I told Ken an Alex to sneak to the northeast corner and hide near the cattails while I crept to the south end of the slough where I would send Cookie into the water to flush the birds. It should have worked and probably would have if there had been any birds on the slough. After Cookie had splashed from one side of the slough to the other, without a flushing a single bird, I called her back and started for Ken and Alex.

There are some larger sloughs north of the farm and these sloughs are usually productive because these are the sloughs where I rely on hunters to flush the birds and send them south, toward my decoys. We climbed into the suburban and bounced across the field and climbed back on the road and turned north.

This time we got a little action, but it was quicker than expected. Nearing the cattails surrounding the slough, Alex nearly stepped on a whitetail doe and her fawn. Both deer exploded into the air just a few feet in front of him, nearly knocking him over as they burst from cover and sprinted for the safety of a soybean field—their tails waving as they ran. When we’d recovered we decided the deer would have flushed anything on the water and we returned to the Suburban. As we drove away four adult mallards, flew past us and cupped their wings to sit on what I call a mid-field slough, one that is surrounded by tilled fields. We decided to follow them and try to flush them (within range) from the slough.

We climbed into the Suburban and drove toward the mid-field slough. The field had been recently harvested and pinto beans, missed by the harvester, covered the ground. It was perfect pickings for the ducks, which love the beans. Plus, the slough was a quarter mile from the road. I parked below the crest of a small rise and the three of us, plus Cookie on her leash, crept toward the slough. As we neared the slough the high cattails hid us from the ducks, which we could hear on the water. I told Ken that I would take Cookie around the slough and send her in from the far side, flushing the ducks over the two of them.

I hadn’t covered ten feet when Cookie caught a scent and started lunging into the thick cattails. Holding her back was a struggle and I knew the commotion would flush the ducks. I turned and told Ken to get Alex ready. Whatever she had scented, she was determined to get, but I had no idea what was in the cattails. I thumbed up the setting on the control for her shock collar. At least if I had to call her back from a deer, the collar was set. Once I turned her loose I expected her to pop back out of the cattails with a crippled duck or goose that had been lost by a hunter. Not a season has gone by when she has not found at least one bird lost by a hunter.

That’s not what happened. When I freed Cookie she plowed into the cattails—a 70+ pound German wirehair on a mission. Her tail was furiously wagging, then she started barking, the bark of “I am gonna kill you, dude!”

“Holy Crap!” I thought. What is she after? Cougar? They’ve been reported in this area. Bear? They too have been reported. Wild pigs are rumored to be moving toward us. There are also moose, even the occasional elk. Then, suddenly, all hell broke loose. Her barking was furious and filled with low, guttural, killing growls and in return something was spitting, howling, snorting, and then spitting some more. The cattails were waving like hurricane winds were whipping them. All I could see was her tail and I grabbed it to pull her out. She lunged back in and the uproar increased. The air smelled of musty cattail dust and the roots mingled with the rotting stalks of last year’s cattails; the tiny puffs of cattail cotton from the pods being whipped by the melee, were everywhere.

I glanced at Alex and Ken. Ken was asking me what was going on and Alex, on his first duck hunt, was watching and hearing something that was loud, mean, and scary as hell. His eyes were open like liberty dollars and he was clutching his H&R Single-shot as if it was all that stood between him and the devil’s own cattail demon! I turned back to Cookie and again grabbed her tail, it was all I could see, and I tried to pull her back. That didn’t work. Whatever she was fighting was holding its own against her. A few of the cattails were pushed down by the snarling, snapping, rolling dog and unknown creature, and then I saw the flash of teeth. It wasn’t a cougar, bear, or pig. Guessing, from the size and number of teeth, I thought she might have cornered a bobcat, which was double trouble because they cannot be hunted in my area. If she had cornered a large, feral cat, the cat would already be dead, she’s killed several. Regardless of what she was locked with, in mortal combat, I had to get her out before she was seriously injured. I reached into the swirling cattails, caught her collar and I yanked her back, only to have her lunge back into the cattails and resume her attack. I’ve seen a lot of dog fights but nothing like this. Cookie was snarling and spitting and clouds of steam like dragon fire burst from her mouth and nostrils whenever her snarling head broke free of the cattails, and the clouds of steam-breath surrounded her head like smoke. She went back in the cattails and I reached in again, grabbed her collar and pulled, this time with the force to choke off her barking and as I pulled her up for the first time I could see her adversary—a fully mature raccoon.

Doggies and raccoons have a long had a mutual hatred of each other but now I faced a new problem—rabies. Cookie is up to date on her vaccinations but the possibility of a rabid raccoon could not be ignored. The raccoon was not making a retreat but was standing its ground, only its snarling face, white teeth exposed, could be seen through the cattails. Ten years of hunting the sloughs flashed across my brain. I had never seen a raccoon in a slough, although lots of sign around the edges. I’ve also seen beaver, a couple of foxes and several coyotes stalking ducks, and once I watched a coyote emerge from the cattails surrounding the corner slough with a mud hen in its mouth, but I had never encountered a raccoon. I had to err on the side of safety—and kill the raccoon. If Cookie’s fierce attack had injured it, the raccoon would suffer needlessly. If the unexpected encounter of a raccoon in the cattails surrounding a slough meant the animal was sick—it had to be destroyed. I got the leash on Cookie and then pushed her out of the way. The raccoon still wasn’t retreating and five or ten seconds had passed while I struggled with Cookie. Holding my shotgun in one hand and trying to aim it, while holding Cookie clear, I fired a load of No. 4 steel at about five feet. I thought the load would blow a hole through the raccoon and end the struggle. I missed, or the steel shot was useless, or the raccoon was pumped with so much adrenalin the pellets had no effect. I fired the second barrel and the raccoon snarled and edged toward me.

Ken had sent Alex to the Suburban, and he was now kneeling beside me. The smell of the cattail dust and the cattail cotton both still hung in the air; and both the raccoon and Cookie were still snarling, eager to resume the savage death battle.

“Here,” I said, “reload the damn gun and kill the raccoon.”

Ken took the shotgun and I handed him two more shells. I struggled to get Cookie completely clear. Ken maneuvered until he could see the raccoon in the cattails, then it turned to face him, hissing menacingly through barred teeth. Ken fired one barrel and the raccoon seemed to roll to its side, but Ken could see it was only injured and not dead. Finally, through a narrow opening in the thick cattails, Ken could see the raccoon’s full head. Ken’s second shot finally killed “the beast.” With Cookie pulled away and calming down, Ken made sure the raccoon was dead and then he dragged it to the edge of the cattails. I explained to him that I planned to make some calls and if I had to retrieve its head for a rabies test I could easily find it. Ken and I walked slowly back the Suburban and once there I checked Cookie for injuries, she had only one small puncture wound on her cheek. I washed it out while Ken and I discussed the day’s events, we decided to fold up our tents and call it a day.

Once the guns were put away, Cookie given water and a treat, I climbed into the driver’s seat and started across the field; just as I pulled onto the dirt and gravel road Alex, commenting on the morning events said, “That was exciting. Is duck hunting always this exciting?” Then he wanted to know when we could go again.

That evening, long after a call to the sheriff to see if there had been any problems with rabid raccoons (no) and the call to the vet (treat the puncture like any other, keep it clean and put on antibiotic), with my notebooks open and a cup of coffee in front of me, I reviewed the day. Nothing had gone as planned and Alex wasn’t any closer to learning how to set decoys or successfully creep up on a slough of ducks; but Alex had summed up the morning with one word, “exciting” and he’d asked when we could go again.

I think he’s got a good start on a long hunting career.

An Interesting Story--To Come

2010-10-05T02:08:00.002-05:00

Okay, I went duck hunting this weekend and had an interesting experience. I'm still writing it down and it's not ready to post but I promise it will give you pause to think. I promise to post it within 24 hours.
glg

Nugent and Notes

2010-09-26T18:11:00.003-05:00

There are times when the book is not worth the candle. The Ted Nugent game violation story is one of those times. As I thought about publishing a story in The Pines Review, my small literary journal, about Nugent’s transgression I sought advice from a number of people, including members of the Board of Directors of the NRA, members of various outdoor writer organizations, friends whose opinions I value, and so forth. The comments and suggestions were varied and they ranged from “burn the SOB,” to “leave him alone because he paid the fine.”

I also did some reading. I read accounts of other, much more famous, and a lot of not-so-famous who did similar things. Not all of them were “burned” but a few were—including a friend of mine from the Deep South. I also sought advice in the writings of a couple of philosophers and what I finally arrived at is that Ted Nugent is not worth the trouble, i.e. the book is not worth the candle.

Our candle is the public support of hunting, fishing, the Second Amendment, and of course the book is the publication of the missteps of someone who has a very loud voice, and frequently makes an ass out of himself with his outrageous commentary. But, buried in all of the bravado and BS that pours from Ted Nugent is more than a kernel of truth about the value of hunting helping young people have a better respect for nature and to extrapolate from that, the workings of our society (with its problems). I don’t know exactly how many young people Nugent reaches, but I do know he does reach a significant number and in reaching them if they learn the value of family, nature and develop a spiritual relationship with nature, well, I’m not willing to wreck that by catering to the antis who, of course, will relish any wrong done by the more visible members of our community. I don’t want to burn that candle. But, if Mr. Nugent pulls another stupid stunt like he did in California then the gloves will come off and I would be happy to lead the pack of dogs that tear after him.

Why?

Simple, once shame on you (Nugent) twice, shame on me (us). So now Ted is on the skyline and he’s drawn two targets on himself. One target is for the antis and the other is for his brethren in the community of hunters. Let’s really believe that in time he’ll manage to erase both of those targets.

OUR HUNT

I am blessed with having a lot of friends and a few of them are truly “best” friends. That tiny group of people includes Chas Clifton (author of natureblog) and now, for the past three years, Chas has made the long drive to North Dakota to hunt sharptail grouse with me. This year I added a new name to my list of friends, Holly Heyser, who flew out here to join us on the hunt. You can read a wonderful account of the hunt on Holly’s blog. http://norcalcazadora.blogspot.com I wish I had been able to show the two of them more birds because I know they are here. I don’t always find them but there have been days when I’ve managed to flush half-dozen coveys in a single morning. It happens, just not this time. But having the two of them around for the long weekend was wonderful. We had great conversations, my wife Michelle, fixed great meals after each day’s hunting and best of all Holly got to meet Cookie and learn that I wasn’t making anything up about what a great dog Cookie is. Of course, Holly also fell for my bad dog, Rosie, which I’ll never understand.
Read Holly’s blog on the hunting weekend. It’s a good read.

It is now time for me to get back to work on the next issue of the Review. I’m running a little behind schedule so I’ve got to get back on it. Almost finished.

Dennis Dunns Massive Book Barebow!

2010-09-15T01:32:00.002-05:00

Okay, I’ve been busy trying to make my house, yard and whatever, look somewhat presentable to my soon-to-be-here guests. Chas and Holly will be here to hunt birds but Michelle, my wife, would like for me to make things look a little presentable considering that we are in a constant state of remodeling! But, mixed into that task is trying to get the next issue of The Pines Review out. I’ve been held up on a couple of things and one of them has been writing the review of Dennis Dunn’s massive tome Barebow!, his account of his 40 year quest to be the first person in history to complete the North American Grand Slam of big game animals with a bare bow. For those of you who don’t know a bare bow is one that is sans all of the sighting gadgets that are hung on most of today’s hunting bows.
This is a pretty incredible book. First from the size and second from the content but even more so by the scope of the story and finally by the most unlikely looking appearance of Dennis Dunn, because he looks like a nerd! Actually, that isn’t too far off because he has both a BA and an MA in Romance Languages, and his BA is cum laude from Harvard! To complete his quest he climbs mountains, has a face-to-face encounter with a grizzly bear and gets charged by the most unlikely of big game animals. (I’ll let you find that one out for yourself.)
The whole story is pretty remarkable and the book reads extremely well. My review for The Pines Review is much more detailed and covers a lot more ground, sort of like Dunn’s book. But, when I finished writing my review I asked myself another question—is Dennis Dunn setting archery hunting up for a flood of new hunters who attempt to duplicate his feat, or at least take up hunting bare bow? The truth is that every person I have ever met who is a bow hunter (except for one, and he was a national champion archer) needed those sight pins and whatever else they were using. In fact, I tend to think that without those sighting aids that are hanging on those hunting bows most bow hunters would be wounding and losing a lot of game.
Damn few people have the perseverance to truly master instinctive archery and bow hunting today is not instinctive archery—it is hunting with sights and aids all designed to help the hunter but equally important those aids reduce the number of wounded and lost game. I think all but a very few hunters need those sighting aids.
Dennis Dunn is a remarkable man. What he did is an achievement that will always rank at the top of archery hunting history but it is not for every bow hunter. I hope that bow hunters who think they are capable of hunting the way Dunn did give it a lot of long and careful thought before making the attempt. Every animal’s life is too great a prize to squander by wounding them trying to imitate a master. glg

Just some thoughts and notes

2010-09-05T23:39:00.000-05:00

As odd as it may seem I have still not reached a decision on whether to write something about Ted’s misadventure or to just let it die. By write something I am referring to my small literary journal, The Pines Review. Perhaps I should just let that dog go to sleep. He’s paid his fine and we’ve had our share of troubles so adding to the pile doesn’t make any sense. The flip side comes from my training as a journalist and years of working as a journalist, both freelance and staff. On that side I am telling myself it is a duty to write on what happened even if my journal is published months after the incident. I’m still thinking about it and will probably think about it for most of the week while I finish this issue.

Other news of note. Our dove season is open and I have not stepped into a field. For some reason my feeble brain was thinking it opened this coming weekend—on the eleventh! Okay, I am stupid but not for much longer. Cookie and I will be making up for lost time starting tomorrow!
Last week I took Cookie into the vet’s office for her annual checkup and shots. She is a dog that always pleases me because she is so sweet and well behaved in public. There was less than a pound’s difference in her weight from her last visit and as always she sat quietly while she got her shots then the vet and her assistant fawned over Cookie, asking if she was ready to go hunting. I cringed because “hunting” is a word that sets Cookie off. This time all she did was begin to wag her tail. Then the vet said “bird” and Cookie was no longer sitting but standing and looking around the sterile room as if to ask “how could there be a bird in here?” I was pleased because Cookie pleased others.
In another week the sharptail season opens and the two of us will be beating the grass country for the birds. Over the years Cookie and I have had great times together hunting sharptail. I don’t know if it is because it is the first of the upland bird seasons and Cookie is working off all the stored up energy or just her joy of life, but she plows through the grass with a gusto that I truly love to watch. I suppose that in some ways the bird hunting season is so special because I’ve had wonderful dogs and many of my best memories are of the season. I’m looking forward to the weekend of the 18th and 19th when one of my best friends, and a new friend, will be hunting with me. I just hope I can put them in the birds. Well, put them where the birds are, the dogs will do the rest.
I hope everyone is having wonderful early seasons and getting ready for a great autumn. glg

Good Leadership and Nugent's Failure

2010-08-20T21:11:00.004-05:00

What is to be gained by more commentary on the Ted Nugent fiasco? He stepped on it and he has no one to blame but himself. A person might insist on arguing that others are responsible because they failed to inform him of California’s hunting regulations, but that argument does not wash. The simple truth is that Ted Nugent is the person in charge. It is his show. He is the person behind all the moving and shaking about sponsors, selling the concept to networks. The whole “Spirit of The Wild” effort is his baby, so when something goes wrong only so much of the excrement secreted actually flows down hill, contrary to the laws of physics in nature, in responsibility it rolls uphill. Here’s how it works: The person in charge is the person who is ultimately responsible for the actions and welfare of those below.

Those people below may argue against an action conceived, ordered or otherwise endorsed by those above them but only the person in charge is ultimately responsible for the actions of the others. There are a thousand reasons, all of them knife-sharp and ready to be turned against an underling who refuses to obey an order, and because of them nearly every underling will carry out wrongful or just misguided orders. Occasionally, there is the underling martyr who refuses to carry out an order and is fired, or hanged in totalitarian regimes, but it is rare. More frequently, there are the captains and lieutenants who refuse to sacrifice the lives entrusted to them to the idiocy of deranged leaders. But, good leaders also depend on those below them to provide good intelligence—but they have to ask for it! Underlings rarely provide that intelligence without being asked to get it. That’s when the excrement flows up hill. Did Nugent task his lower managers with getting the facts on California hunting? Did he educate himself to the facts so he could recognize good advice and poor advice? That’s what a good leader does. A good leader is well enough versed in whatever the framework of an action is that poor advice, bad intelligence, is recognized or at least suspected, and steps taken to get more information. Here is the perfect example of poor leadership--Ted Nugent failed in his leadership. The little brown piles rolled up hill.

But, on his web site Nugent does say that he takes full responsibility. I guess that shows he is being a leader.

I don’t agree.

His web site mea culpa acknowledges that he plead “no contest” to two “misdemeanor game violations.” The Latin basis is nolo contendere which translates into, “I do not wish to contend.” The defendant does not dispute the charge but does not admit to any guilt or wrong doing. Here’s the kicker, the charges to which the defendant pleads “no contest” cannot be used against him or her in a future case. The defendant must, however, accept the punishment for the offence as imposed by the court.

Ted Nugent did not accept guilt for his actions. Through a plea agreement the state agreed to accept the nolo contendere that was entered into the court in absentia (he was not in the courtroom). Further, the state dropped the other nine charges! Ted Nugent did not show any leadership or class. He used his position, influence and money as “Ted Nugent” to beat the system for an offense he committed. Is there any person who truly believes that any “Joe” or “Jane” off the street could commit the same, or nearly the same set of offenses, and get nine out of eleven charges dropped and the other two a nolo contendere plea?

I believe that Ted Nugent failed to live up to his position of leadership in the outdoor community. A 37 word, three sentence mea culpa without an admission of guilt is not sufficient for a person who claims a position of leadership in the outdoor community, a position that includes leadership of young people.

Ted Nugent’s star has fallen. Now he must pick it up and spend some time polishing it.

August Weather and Goose Hunting

2010-08-15T23:11:00.002-05:00

Suddenly the temperature drops into the low fifties and the dove start packing their bags. I hope they are not in too much of a hurry since the weather people are forecasting a return of August weather by the middle of the week. Of course, August weather up here is somewhat more temperate than August weather in other parts of the country. I shouldn’t be too quick to brag though, the last of July and first week of August we had some lousy hot weather in the 90s and if you toss in the humidity the temperature “felt” like 100 or 101. Then I look at other parts of the country and give a sigh of thanks that Michelle talked me into moving up here.

I haven’t had a chance to get out and try that early season goose hunting. I did take a drive around to check out some of my waterfowl hunting areas and there are geese hanging around but I’m not convinced there are enough geese on those sloughs to merit donning cammies, packing the smoke pole and Cookie. The geese were pretty laid back and didn’t seem to be too worried about my presence. I will probably take a drive to a much larger slough that usually has more geese on it and see if that would be worth returning to park myself for some pass shooting.

The idea behind this early season is to get the resident goose population down before the geese migrating from Canada arrive. According to the wildlife people the target population of resident geese here in Eastern North Dakota is 80,000 birds and right now we’ve got a resident population of 140,000 birds. For people who don’t understand, all of those geese have got to feed somewhere and they like to visit the various farm fields and help themselves. That’s a lot of geese gulping down soybeans, wheat, and who knows what else, all at the expense of farmers.

There is another reason for getting the number of birds down—health. Whenever birds like waterfowl begin to congregate too heavily there is always the chance of disease, both for people and birds. So, sometime this week I’ll go out and do some goose hunting. It has been a long summer, even if summer isn’t yet over. As for the dove, they can unpack their bags and hang around for a few more weeks, there’s lots of warm weather yet to come.

Early Goose Season

2010-08-10T00:01:00.002-05:00

Yesterday’s newspaper had an announcement that the North Dakota early Canada goose season opener is set for August 15. At first I was sort of excited about it. This has been a long summer with some problems that I hadn’t expected that kept me from some projects that I had planned. So, I was kind of excited about taking Cookie goose hunting. Then I walked outside and got hit in the face by the mid-90 temperatures and the humidity.

Sorry guys. Goose hunting, at least for me, does not mean beating back hoards of mosquitoes and flicking ticks off my arms, legs, head and neck. Besides, my waterfowl clothing is for cold weather. Hunting from a sauna hasn't got much appeal.

Of course, there are a lot of good reasons for going out in the early season and they all revolve around the need for population control. There are too many birds and not enough habitat. I don’t have any problem with the early season and I do intend to try and get in one or two hunts and if, by some magical combination of the planets, I manage to actually get my limit of five geese that would be enough to fill up a good part of my freezer. I know a lot of hunters will breast their birds and toss the rest but I was brought up not to waste meat from the game I killed so a one day limit of Canada geese in my freezer would be a huge bonus for the coming winter.

I’ve been watching geese so finding them won’t be hard. What will be hard is taking enough insect repellent to not be carried away by the mosquitoes. We’ll see how it works out. Hunting them in such warm weather as we’ve been having is something I still haven’t managed to get a handle on so any advice from readers who have some experience with warm weather goose hunting is welcome. glg

Outside vs Inside Nature & Caves of Steel

2010-08-01T20:54:00.004-05:00

If we hunt we are acting “within” nature. If we only observe then are we acting “outside” of nature? Over the past few weeks I’ve been reading a couple of books and a number of essays on the subject of identification of our position in relation to nature. Now, as some of you may know, I maintain that nature is consistent with wherever a person happens to be. The sort of nature a person is experiencing will vary, from the living room of a home to the nature of the northern woods, but I believe each one is nature. In the one nature will exist the mites, insects, pets, houseplants, people and maybe even mice, and at the other end we will have moose, bear, fish, with thousands of other forms of wildlife.

My question is this: “Is there a true separation between being “within” and “outside” of nature?

Can anyone actually find themselves living outside of nature short of living in a bubble to be isolated from even bacteria? I want to answer my own question with the statement that “no, we cannot escape from nature.” But, if that statement is true then how do we explain the identified psychological problems that are known to arise with children and adults who have been raised to think of themselves as being separated from nature by the march of technology and growing reality of Asimov’s Caves of Steel?

We don’t need to read the work of today’s influential thinkers to realize there is a functionality disorder commonly shared among people who grew up in the sans-nature environs of urbanized cultures. Frequently, we find these people the targets for fund raising campaigns by radical anti-hunting/fishing movements, or similar activities, and these people never check the groups’ backgrounds to verify their claims. Simply being pro animal rights on some level is enough and they make their donations, ignoring the Silver of Judas in the leadership’s hands. Sadly, these same people will reject valid conservation and preservation programs administered by organizations with no connection to the consumptive sports—even in their own backyards—to follow the movement’s credo. What is truly disturbing is that very few of these well-meaning people are capable of identifying wild flowers, animals, and even local bird species and when asked, cannot identify the ecological zone they live in! For millions of people the very closest they ever come to “wildlife” is the city zoo and the only interaction with an animal is a dog, cat, or other pet and they cannot fathom a cat relieving itself outside of a box of kitty litter or a day not following Spot on the city sidewalk and picking up after the dog.

Most authors of academic studies place the blame for the creation of our “no nature” generation on the advent of replacement social technology. That is the technology of tools that replace the need, or desire, to go outside and interact with nature and other people in the freer environment of nature where playful creativity and social interaction generates a stronger sense of well-being. These researchers are on to something that is important, except that the replacement technology, whether we are talking about computer games (online or in computer) or other aspects of technology, are only as valid as the individual is willing to let them become and they only gain validity when the technology is an economical substitute for outdoor activities. I realized the importance of the economic battle between technology and the outdoors when pricing fishing tackle after a discussion with my step-son over the price of a computer game—the computer game was much less expensive than the lowest priced, moderate quality rod and reel combination. That revelation had been foretold nearly twenty years ago when an older hunter stopped by our Colorado hunting camp to share hunting tips and coffee. I and another hunter from our group had been working on our laptops because both of us had article deadlines for the day after we returned from camp. The older hunter looked disgustedly at the computers. He asked me how much I paid for my laptop and after I told him he snorted and said, “Someday, when that thing is cheaper than a hunting trip, people will stay home with those and your grand kids won’t get to go hunting.”

He was a prophet.

That’s the problem that so many researchers are alluding to—technology is replacing activity. I maintain there is much more to the equation than technology being guilty of locking us indoors—we’ve made nature a victim of ourselves. We’ve damaged nature with the industry that drives our civilization and if there is to be any repairing of nature then people have got to be willing to foot the bill. I’m not so sure people are. Consider the BP spill, media attention has increasingly focused on how much the spill is costing BP and then how and when that cost will be passed on to consumers. Already, those people who live close to the spill are worrying that both the government and BP are setting the stage to “cut-n-run.”

I suspect that two strong factors are working against the repair of the damaged nature and they are the public’s fear of paying for cleaning up coastal wetlands that most people have never seen, nor do they understand, and the second factor is time—the more time after the event the farther the event is from the public’s mind. The public needs to understand that when nature has people interacting and protecting it, it is going to support us as a species. We, as individuals, must not be tricked into accepting an artificial nature created in a computer or the lobby of a massive hotel as the nature that sustains our world. No matter how hard programmers try to incorporate nature into the machine it remains the machine and is outside of nature, and when the real nature needs humanity’s help a line of computer code will not save nature as we know it.

Think about it. glg

If you have never read Caves of Steel, the robot series, Caves of Steel (Robot (Spectra Books)) or Robot Trilogy: The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, The Robots of Dawn it is well worth the time to read it. He wrote The Caves of Steel in 1954 and it is incredible how much of the book has become reality. You don't have to be a fan of Science Fiction to enjoy Asimov's work. glg

Just Thinking About Dogs

2010-07-14T02:29:00.004-05:00

There are three pictures on a book shelf across from my desk. Two are black & white and one is color and the color one is of my mother kneeling beside my Springer Spaniel, Gretel. I’d just had Gretel to the groomer and I stopped at my mother’s home for our daily visit and coffee, and to let her see Gretel all groomed and cleaned up. It was the last time my mother saw Gretel alive because two days later a drunk driver hit and killed my dog. The shock of having my dog die in my arms is something I have never recovered from. Don’t misunderstand me, I’ve seen my share of death and some of it has been in pretty large doses, but having that wonderful, loving, spirited dog die in my arms while my wife was driving madly to the vet’s office has never left me and that’s probably why the two black and white photos are on my shelf. One is of Gretel when she was only a few weeks old, hiding behind a pine tree and playing “catch me.” The other is of me leaning over to pet her. I’ve got a shotgun in my hand and we’re standing in water. The look on Gretel’s face tells it all—she’s having a great time.

That’s not the only picture of Gretel in my office. There is one that was taken on a partridge hunt and another of me kneeling beside her, taken the same day that the one of her and my mother was taken. Those last pictures are treasures and every year when I make it back to Colorado I take some time to visit my friend, Al, and while there I go outside to spend a few minutes at the graves of my pets.

Between Gretel and now Cookie I had a third dog—Jenny. She too was a Springer and like all of my dogs was a wonderful part of my world and when I close my eyes I can relive and laugh about her antics. She made the cover of a couple of magazines and was a constant companion, whether fishing, hunting or just being. Jenny was fantastic at finding birds and doing what she was supposed to do—flush them into flight. After we moved to North Dakota Jenny got sick and when nothing helped I finally had to have her put down, but I didn’t have the heart to bury her here in North Dakota so I had her cremated and her ashes are on another shelf. Sometimes I pick up the urn and hold it and read her ID tag. I haven’t had the heart to scatter or bury her ashes, although Al said I could bury her ashes with the other dogs.

There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t pet and love all of my dogs (I now have three, plus M’s Jack Russell, Rylie and he gets his share of my attention). Each one of them is an important part of my life and that includes my rotten Jack Russell, Rosie. She spends most of every day getting into trouble for one thing or another—although she is sound asleep in my lap as I write this. (Cookie is on my feet and Buster sleeping next to my chair. Rylie is in the house with M, probably curled up next to her in bed.) I try to balance my attention between the dogs because I know there will come a day when all I’ll have of them will be the pictures on the book shelves and the memories of them. It won’t be enough, but it’ll be better than life without having had them in my life.

I’ve always thought that dogs give our world a magical value that pound for pound has a greater worth than all of the precious metals and gemstones humanity has ever mined. Those of us who hunt with our dogs, whether they are so-so hunters or smarter than we are, get the added pleasure of stocking up on memories that give our lives a depth of meaning the non-hunter can never share.

Dogs in our lives sort of make everything else bearable, don’t you think?

Radish Sandwiches and Nature

2010-07-12T00:38:00.002-05:00

I remember the summer trips, years ago, when I went with my parents to the family farm near Lamont, Oklahoma to spend the day working in the garden. My parents, Fred and Dora, usually planted a garden that included just about anything that would grow in Oklahoma. I don’t remember how they watered it during the driest and hottest summer days but I’m sure they pumped water from the well and had some kind of hose gizmo or some such thing. I vividly remember that each time I’d accompany them, whether just my father or both my parents, we always worked through the morning; pulling weeds and hoeing the rows of vegetables until it was time for lunch. Before walking over to sit in the shade near the well and the metal pump we would pull some green onions and plump radishes from the garden, sometimes we had leaf lettuce and we’d pick a little of that as well. In the shade of the elm trees we washed what we’d picked, my Dad working the pump handle while I washed away the dirt. When everything was clean we sat down and prepared our lunch—radish, onion, leaf lettuce and cheese sandwiches. We’d buttered the bread before we left home and the bread was thick slices of my mother’s homemade bread. To this day it is a sandwich that I make for myself whenever I have radishes in my fridge, today, however, was truly special because I had radishes fresh from my small garden. I pulled them from the ground and dropped them on a pile of greens that I’d just cut, then I carried everything into the house, washed the harvest and after putting most of the greens (I couldn’t help it, I had to much a few as fast as I washed them.) in the fridge, saving a crisp mustard green leaf for the first layer of my radish/onion and cheese sandwich, which I washed down with strong, black coffee.

Today I know that I enjoyed a small, but still significant harvest, and it is what kicked in the memories of “the farm” and living in north central Oklahoma in the 50s and 60s. The other thing I remember is that about the only wildlife we ever saw on the farm, other than birds feeding on mulberries, was cottontails, jackrabbits and an occasional coyote. I have absolutely no memory of ever seeing a deer, turkey or even a quail on the farm. My parents sold that farm in 1961 and I did not return for 35 years but when I did there was nothing left to mark the place that had been the farmstead, that alone my parent’s garden. Every nail from any out building, the farm house, or a splinter from any fence post, had all been taken away or returned to the earth. In town, however, I talked with a man who told me that in the creek bottom there were turkeys and deer and quail had returned to the area. That was 15 years ago. It’s getting close to time for me to take a trip back to Oklahoma and visit the site of the farm, place some flowers on the tombstones of my brothers buried in Oklahoma and Kansas soil; I'll see how the deer and turkeys are doing, and find out if the quail are holding their own against whatever is thinning their coveys around the country.

I wonder if that’s what we mean about some of us being “nature-based” people. We grew up with our fingers digging into the soil to both plant and harvest our crops, however small or large, and when we look out, at the places where we hunt and fish, we don’t see dividing lines between wilderness and non-wilderness, we just see nature and we know where we fit into it.

I remember that a worm was used for bait to catch a fish we would eat that night and a shotgun and shell we used to kill a rabbit or a duck that would be a meal. Life was all natural and ordered, just like those radish sandwiches. Thick slices of homemade bread with butter spread on them, first a leaf of lettuce then green onions, sliced thin and lengthwise and laid on the bread, then the radishes, cut into slices and spread over the onions and sometimes a sprinkle of salt for flavor and finally slices of cheese cut from a chunk of strong cheddar cheese bought that morning. When the layers were in place the bread was pressed down slightly, to hold everything together for each new bite—start to finish. Finally it was washed down with cold well water slurpped from hands cupped under the pump’s spout. Then it was time to go back to the garden and gather a small harvest before starting home.

Strange, the things we tend to think about, don’t you think? glg

Kennel Cleaning Time

2010-06-29T00:15:00.003-05:00

I'm trying to make a few adjustments in my office, changing things I don't like, adding a few things here and there AND cleaning out the inside kennel. I clean the outside on a daily basis and try to keep the inside somewhat clean by dragging the dogie blankets out and shoving them in the washing machine at least once every couple of weeks, but that does not help the muck which the dogs drag in and grind into the floor. Somehow dogie goo that is tracked in on their feet does not polish but cakes on the floor and I have to clean it off at least once a month. Cleaning it requires crawling into the kennel, via the dog door, taking a wire brush with soap and water and scrubbing it clean. Smells great for about 24 hours then it goes back to smelling like a kennel and I fire up the scent candles when I am at my desk. I think someone needs to invent a dogie kennel smell be gone widget.
I'm also doing some repair work, changing the mesh that keeps dogs in, repair or replacing the nylon screen that is supposed to keep flies and mosquitoes out. Cookie has a habit of poking her front feet through the outside screen to get at the grass. I think I've solved the problem with cattle fencing cut down to fit and doubled so I can offset the squares so she keeps her head in and doesn't get it stuck. Then a 1x12 across the bottom of the outside kennel. Should work.
As for inside, sort of the same thing except I've got to put a wire screen up that will keep her from trying to catch my cat that is supposed to be living in my office and not in my bedroom in the house.
Progress is slow in matters of the dogie kennel, mostly because I move slower than I once did.
For now, back to work on the kennel so I can put my office back in order and get some stuff done.
later, time to think....
glg

Amtrak and the hunter

2010-06-16T00:49:00.004-05:00

Last week and over the weekend I went to the OWAA conference in Rochester, Minnesota. I presented a seminar on the philosophy of outdoor writing in the 21st century. I think my presentation went well and it was well attended with a full room and some good comments and questions after the session.

To get to and from the conference I took the Amtrak from Grand Forks to Winona, MN and then a shuttle from the Amtrak station to the Kahler hotel (across from the Mayo Clinic). The trip was pleasant, both ways, and I managed to get a good night’s sleep on the train so that when I reached the conference I was ready to go and when I returned home, the same. I did have to spend an hour in the station waiting for the shuttle to take me to the hotel but I used that time to take a few photos of the station. Sitting in the station after the other passengers had been picked up I looked at the old benches could imagine the people who had passed through and worn down the wood of the benches. The station itself, an old brick building that needs some repair, has all the wonderful glow of the golden age of train travel. I hope the Amtrak leadership has the sense to preserve the building and not try to “improve” things by tearing it down and building another one of those intolerable, ugly, personality free tombs they have built to replace the “aging” stations.

Amtrak has some personality problems with its management and creative people, and it is lacking a couple of routes that could make it a much more desirable transportation system, but just because the dog is old doesn’t mean it isn’t still a good dog.

I enjoy travelling by train much more than I do by air. Airports, although they are full of all the amenities to make the travelling experience more bearable, they are too big, too noisy and everything is way over-priced. Train stations are, by contrast, rarely as well maintained, rarely offer the travel amenities and since it is sometimes a challenge to work out a train schedule that gets you where you want to go without a long layover a lot of people refuse to travel by train. For those of us who hunt there is another problem—Amtrak will not allow firearms to be checked as baggage, even in locked cases that are locked in the baggage car! It is a short-sighted rule on Amtrak’s part and I have heard there are some efforts to lobby congress to force Amtrak to drop the rule but I haven’t followed up on it. The other problem is that you can’t take your dog on the train, even (again) in a locked crate that is checked. With a little planning on their part they could make an accommodation if the dog had a bark collar and a muzzle (if that’s their fear), was in a crate and the crate was in the lower level area (with the owner). I can remember when animals were allowed to travel by train in the baggage car so I know it hasn’t been “that” long ago unless I am older than I think I am.

I hope the rule can be changed. I’d like to take the train over to some places where I could hunt different species of birds and it would be a lot easier for me to visit my grandkids if I could put Cookie in a crate and take her. Even if she did have to ride in a crate she would rather go with me than be left behind. If I add up the cost of either putting her in a kennel or hiring someone to take care of her when I am gone for a week or more a ticket to take her with me would cost less.

I am sure that to some people the whole notion of being able to check a gun case or take your dog on the train seems trivial compared to other issues. It is not that easy. This is our country and as hunters (and anglers) the transportation system is there to serve us—as in the consumer and taxpayer—hunters are consumers and taxpayers. I don’t know how many hunters would take a train from where they live to a Rocky Mountain or other western state for a guided big game hunt or a week of bird hunting, but I have a hunch that with the problems of plane travel, the numbers might be higher than one suspects. I get angry when I realize that we are being treated as second class citizens, yet we are expected to pay most of the bills for the wildlife management throughout the ski areas and other “playlands” where the trains travel and promote vacation packages.

I love to travel by train. Next month I’ll be taking a cross country trip with my son and grandson, from California to Chicago, and the month after that I’m taking a train to the POMA conference. When I think about how Amtrak is screwing the American sportsman and woman I begin a slow burn. We deserve better. After all, if Amtrak can build special racks in their coastal train so they can haul surf boards and bicycles I really believe they could think of some way to accommodate the men and women paying the biggest part of the bill for the nation’s wildlife.
Just a complaint that I had to air while I am thinking about it.

glg

Geese and What Went Wrong, Then and Now

2010-06-05T23:56:00.002-05:00

In 1982 or 83 I wrote a story titled “Oil Patch Pilots” for Soldier of Fortune magazine. This was a story about the helicopter pilots of the Vietnam War who found work flying crews to and from the Gulf’s offshore oil rigs. During one group interview in a ready room, while talking about flying, Vietnam and the oil rigs, my brother Wayne told the story of blowing the transmission in his Bell helicopter and having to auto rotate into the Gulf. When the helicopter hit water the floatation devices failed to fire and the helicopter completely submerged before a short in the system finally fired the floats and the aircraft bobbed to the surface. Wayne turned to the passenger, a top oil company executive, and said; “don’t worry it’ll float."

The oil executive quipped, “yeah, but it is supposed to fly!”

Something else Wayne said during that conversation also stayed with me; “The problem with those oil rigs is ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ If people can’t see the rigs, they are out of mind of what can go wrong.”

Wayne warned that someday, something would happen to one of the rigs and in his words, “there will be hell to pay, and hell has a big price tag.”

Wayne died before seeing his prophecy come true. In the closing years of his life Wayne increasingly fixated on religion and had an increasing critical rage over the veracity of mega industries, such as today’s BP, and politicians.

Wayne is only one of my brothers who died from the lingering effects of exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. In my research of how our government has used chemical defoliants I’ve learned that they were deployed in the Korean War and at one time commonly used around nearly every military installation with any sort of vegetation, which included the vicinity where another brother (also dead of cancer) served at an isolated radar installation. Of the five of us who served in Vietnam only one brother seems to have escaped the ravages of exposure to AO and that is because he was based in Thailand and flew over Vietnam. As for myself, every day is a new adventure in pain--but such is the price of glory.

Some argue that my family is predisposed toward cancer, an argument that can be easily disproved, other doctors have said they believe Agent Orange contains a chemical that is a triggering mechanism that turns on a family cancer gene. Another doctor said it is because all of us were smokers (all of us quit in the 80s) and grew up around a smoker—my father. But neither one of my parents died from cancer.

There are no clear answers—only the graves and the questions.

I bring this up because once again there are the dead, admittedly the dead are birds and fish and mammals, but they are just as dead and there are lots of questions. I had a flood of questions wash over me this afternoon while I watched a skein of geese pass over my house and begin circling the slough north of town. Come October, how far south will the waterfowl of the central flyway go? Will they stop short of the oil-covered marshlands?

I thought about Wayne and the distrust he brought back from his years of flying in the Gulf. I thought of Albert, Richard, Robert, Jerry and Wayne, now cold and buried. Albert trusting that the vaporized metals he breathed, while he welded those oil tanks, wouldn’t kill him, but they did. Richard, spraying “weed killer” around the radar shack, Robert, in Korea and later Vietnam, twice exposed and Jerry hearing the liquid falling on the roof of his hootch in Vietnam when the planes flew over, and finally Wayne. He brought back pictures he had taken from his gunship when he flew escort missions for planes dropping defoliant, long after the practice had allegedly been stopped. And now our young people, the pride of our country, are fighting again. What will they bring home? Are they like the geese that, come this autumn, will join the hummingbirds, and robins, and waxwings, and bluebirds and who really knows the others, and all fly south; they will be trusting, as they always have, that nature will be right. But this time nature will not be right and the tragedy is nature did nothing wrong.

We did, and no man can resurrect the dead.

Yippie, Yea, Okay, You Got It!

2010-06-02T00:58:00.008-05:00

Yup, this issue of The Pines Review is finished, posted and all that. I hadn't planned to spend the entire month of May getting it put to bed! Well, most of the month of May. Still, took me longer than I had anticipated but I think the results are well worth it. The link to the MagCloud site is at the end of this post in case any of my dear readers are interested in ordering a print copy. Okay, it is pretty cheap advertising on my part but can anyone blame me? I am trying to make a buck or two to help defray the costs. Actually, the print copy is worth it because of the quality of the printing (full color) and paper. If you are like me and counting pennies these days you can also enjoy it on the Issuu site, and you get to do that for free! I'm really tickled with the Issuu site and the quality of the technology. If you go to the magazine and look at the cover you'll discover the contents column on the left side of the cover is fully liked to the articles, that means if you want to read (say) the story about the Zimbabwe Borderline Walk, you can put your cursor on that story, click on the arrow and it will take you to that page.

As promised, this issue has a very long profile of Dr. Randall Eaton. I encourage everyone who has a concern about the future of wildlife, our society, and not just hunting, to give it a read. There is a whole lot more taking place in what Eaton is saying than first meets the eye. I am not saying I agree 100% with Dr. Eaton, but with what he is saying there is so much truth.

The Borderline Walk in Zimbabwe is one of the most unusal stories that I've ever worked with. African Expeditions Magazine took on a huge project when the editors decided to support David Hulme in his project to walk around the border of Zimbabwe. David is doing it to draw attention to the plight of Zim's wildlife. Read it, you will not be sorry.

Finally, there is a whole lot more in the journal: poetry, some great photos, some good fiction and even some technical stuff. I feel good about this issue. And now, it is time for me to take a break and finish my porch. Oh, and start getting Cookie into shape, she's gotten fat over the winter. Well, so have I.

Here is the Issuu site so you can read (or even download) The Pines Review online. I look forward to hearing your comments, especially your reaction to Dr. Eaton. http://issuu.com/thepinesreview/docs/v_iii_no_2_spring_summer_2010_online?viewMode=magazine
And to order a copy, here is the link.

Weather, Garden and Eaton

2010-05-16T01:30:00.004-05:00

The weather has cleared and there is a blue sky--I'm sure. I've got a few more pages to put together and then this issue goes to proof reading. I'm going to take a break at some point this weekend and get my garden started. Just something I need to do. Feel the dirt, that sort of thing.

I did finish the Randall Eaton profile. I'm not going to spill the beans before the magazine is out but I do believe he may be one of the most important speakers and thinkers to the future of hunting. I hope those of you who are not getting the Review will contact me about getting it online.

Break time is over. I need to finish this page.
glg

Too Deep to Write

2010-05-04T00:53:00.004-05:00

Yeah, too deep to write. I'm working on the next issue of "The Pines Review" and until I can come out from under the pile of work it requires I am going to be very limited in my postings.
The cover feature for this issue is Dr. Randall Eaton. He is the author of "From Boys to Men of Heart" and "The Sacred Hunt" and the books open up a lot of interesting ideas. I've also read a pile of other work by him and interviewed him (actually, maintained an email correspondence with him for several months). I've also interviewed some people who have heard him speak, a couple of others who have known him for decades and everything is being fed into the hopper of a good personality feature. The Review should be going out by email on the 14th. or 15th. so if you are not on my email list for it and would like to read it let me know.
Now, I need to read another book to cross check some references. It never ends.
glg

The Power of Mind and Hunting

2010-04-28T00:05:00.002-05:00

Tovar,
From my own martial arts days of years ago one of the forces I became very aware of, and I am still very much aware of is the “key” power of the individual. I’ve seen it in action on many occasions and I do believe it plays a critical role in the success or failure of the hunt. I am not discounting the social interaction of animals and I do believe there is much more to animal social patterns than present day science may be willing to recognize, but I am not willing to go so far as to accept the offering act as a prima facie truth. Now, that said let me add that I do believe in the following:
1. The power of prayer.
2. The power of positive thinking.
3. The power of the Mind to communicate to other Minds.
4. The power of the Mind to communicate with God (whatever an individual recognizes as God).
5. The power of the Mind to communicate with other, physical, Brains.

My limiting factor here is “Mind” because I am having some trouble (so far) with the notion of animals having a “Mind” because I do believe that we must separate “Mind” from “Brain.” The Mind has the capacity to recognize the existence of this and other universes and while the Brain responds to Mind the Brain does not, in and of itself, enter into the different universes but remains fixed to this one. Am I saying that animals do not possess “Mind”? I am saying that I am having trouble with it and I am open to more learning.

Is it possible that Brain has the capacity to respond to Mind? Absolutely! Mind is the more powerful of the two and even though we will find buried in Brain those paths that lead to specific activities and emotions Brain is unable to return the nonphysical communication to Mind so it must use physical communication, i.e., stopping to look at the source of the communication or, if the source is threatening, it flees. Wouldn’t this be the case when a hunter is so intense on killing the animal it “senses” the danger and flees without ever seeing (smelling, hearing) the hunter? If, when an animal “senses” (which is Brain responding to Mind) the hunter’s presence without any of its senses having been triggered the animal is going to respond in some way that is appropriate to what the animal’s Brain is telling it.

When I was studying martial arts it was not for fun and games but was for the purpose of killing an enemy and we were taught to control our key power—not to focus on the enemy we intended to kill because they would “sense” us and the instructor frequently referred to an animal’s ability to respond to that key power as an example of it at work. In the years since I have often experimented with the notion, the most recent being while I was taking a break on my roof and watching a bird move into one of the bird houses I had erected. While I simply watched the bird it hopped around the yard, flying from bird house to ground to pick up nesting material and carrying it inside its new home. Within a few minutes after I switched from just observing to being focused on that little bird it flew to a nearby tree where it was safe and for the next several minutes scolded me. After I returned to working on my roof it was only a few minutes until the bird was back at work on its nest. I’ve seen the same effect while hunting. When a hunter becomes fixated on a single animal that animal responds to the hunter and it is often without the animal ever having experienced the hunter’s presence with any of the senses. Most hunters dismiss the animal’s actions as something to do with the wind or a glint from a gun barrel or some other fault, which is often true, but equally often it is the hunter’s Mind that reached the animal’s Brain and triggered a reaction—which I still want to call animal behavior.

One argument for animals possessing a quality that enables them communicate with Mind is that many hunters have said they became “aware of the animal behind them.” In this situation there is often a belief that the animal’s equivalent of Mind or Key power has communicated its intention, whether it is sneaking past the hunter, watching the hunter or stalking the hunter (as prey). I am not convinced of this connection. Mind is not bound by any physical borders or restraints and must therefore be aware of a complete area around itself. If Mind establishes a protective area and that area is penetrated by an object, animate or inanimate, then Mind will respond with a warning. (Let’s stick to the animal-human interaction and ignore the human-human, human-inanimate, issues.) But, just as often, the individual Mind fails to provide this warning and the individual is killed or at least injured.

Why?

When I go back and read many of the cases of people being attacked by predators they are sleeping after a physically demanding day, they have been consuming alcohol, they are completely preoccupied with another task or they are absorbed in something that is Mind numbing such as being absorbed in listening to their radio with earphones. At the same time survivors of attacks (in most cases) seem to have been aware of their environment and “tuned in” to it, even when they were sleeping. Teir Mind is unencumbered by artificial noise (earphones) or even in their sleeping, Mind remains alert to danger.

So, is it possible that “primitive” (or more nature based?) societies still possess the Mind to nature connection that provides a more powerful link to the animal Brain than contemporary “civilized” man? And, if this is so, isn’t it equally possible that through the act(s) of hunting people of civilization’s complex societies are able to recapture a portion of that Mind to nature link, although in varying and usually lesser degrees?

I know I haven’t addressed the question of social organization within animal communities but I believe we need to keep the discussion more hunter/animal based. At least for now.

What think? glg

A few notes

2010-04-26T22:42:00.002-05:00

The roof is done. As in finished, with all of the shingles in place, nailed down and ready for the first real spring storm of the year in my part of the world. Of course my porch is not finished but that’s another project.

In the past week I’ve been doing just a bit of cruising around the neighborhood (okay, the section roads in the area) and I’ve been looking at the sloughs. They are full of water and the ducks are nesting, which is a good thing. Also, this has been a very mild spring and so far we are in good shape for a good bird year. I am keeping my fingers crossed that we don’t have a spate of hard weather after the grouse and partridge settle down to nesting. I don’t worry too much about the waterfowl because they seem to weather the storms better than the upland birds.

This year I am promising myself that I will spend more time practicing with my trusty muzzle stuffer shotgun. I am confident that I can put up a better average than I have in past seasons but I need to focus myself and dedicate at least two afternoons a week to shooting at clay birds.

THE PINES REVIEW

My project for the coming week or so will be the next issue of The Pines Review. I am truly pleased with some of the progress that I am making with this issue. One big advance is that it will be available in either the PDF file attachment or the more sophisticated page turning format. The latter will make the Review much easier to read and I’ve also eliminated most of those pesky “jumps” that made previous issues hard to read. I am not saying that I’ve eliminated all jumps because I haven’t. If I did that then the text between the opening pages of each story would be painfully long. What I have done is limit the jumps to one per story. I think those of you who read the Review will like the changes.

I hope everyone has a good week—I know I will—NO SHINGLES TO POUND ON!!!

glg

Bruised Thumbs and Animal Behavior

2010-04-21T23:22:00.003-05:00

Deadlines are looming on my horizon and I’m feeling the pressure. I’ve got a couple of magazine articles to finish plus it is time to start putting together the next issue of The Pines Review. The frustrating thing for me is that my roof isn’t finished. My problem is that I underestimated how long it would take a crippled geezer like me to tote the shingles, lay them out and nail them down—in between meeting other obligations. I’m getting there, though. By my count I’ve got six more rows of shingles then the peak and the roof is finished. All I have left to do on this year’s garage/office project is to build the porch on my office. Today the lumberyard delivered the last of the wood for that project so I will have to get right on it. I figure if the past has been any sort of indicator of my work speed I’ll be finished in time for Christmas. In the old days it would have been a couple of days and done. Isn’t aging a pain in the butt!?

There is also garden to plant and yard work waiting. It’ll all get done. I have learned to take my time, take lots of breaks and ration my pain pills!

There is one advantage to doing things like putting shingles on your roof—you have time to think—as long as it doesn’t interfere with things hammering and scooting across the roof and not falling off. Each time my thumb gets in the way of the hammer I know it is time to get my notebook out and write down what I was thinking about. The funny thing is that everything I am thinking about has to do with some aspect of hunting or fishing or writing about same. Today I smacked my thumb over the simple notion of animal behavior.

Here’s the issue. Randall Eaton writes that often an animal (deer, elk, whatever) “gives itself to the hunter.” (From Boys to Men of Heart; Hunting as Rite of Passage) Of course that’s a simplification of what he writes but the essence is that a hunter who is properly attuned to the spiritual side of the hunt will have the experience of the animal giving itself to the hunter by stopping and standing still for the hunter—offering itself. In my mind I was comparing Eaton’s ideas with those of another writer who is half a world away and believes that he offers dangerous game “the choice of how to die.” The animal can die on the charge where it has a chance of survival. It can “offer itself” to die with a well-placed shot or it can die running away from the hunter. Again, I’ve simplified the writing. When I smacked my thumb (yeah, it’s bruised) I said (aloud) “@#$# what about simple animal behavior?”

Well, what about it?

Years ago, when I was taking the SOF crew hunting every year, several of us came upon a small group of truly trophy mule deer. After some keystone cops moments I finally got the two hunters herded into position for a chance at the deer. While the deer were moving up the side of the hill (not a mountain and only a hundred yards or so away) one of the deer, a magnificent buck that would have made any hunter proud, stopped at the top of the ridge and looked back at us. The hunters, however, were arguing over which would be the best position to shoot from. The deer, alert for danger, watched us for a full minute or two before ambling over the ridge never to be seen again.

Offering itself? Nah, I’ve watched hundreds and hundreds of mule deer bucks do exactly the same thing whether I was hunting, fishing or just hiking. (I’ve never seen a whitetail do it. It seems they perceive danger, the tail goes up and the deer is gone.) In those few moments at the top of a ridge, when the buck (sometimes a doe, but not as often) turns to look back, the deer is accessing the danger and deciding whether it needs to put the pedal to the metal and run like hell, or if it should use stealth to escape or if the danger has passed (or is arguing over the merits of shooting positions) find something more interesting to do. To me, it’s just animal behavior. Or, maybe I’m missing something and part of animal behavior between predator and prey has somehow established this sort of connection.

Ideas anyone? glg

More on (Barf) Competitive Hunting

2010-04-15T22:15:00.001-05:00

Competitive hunting seems to have a lot of supporters and they claim that it is no different than any of the dog trials where birds are planted and the dog/shooter is scored on how quickly the birds are found and retrieved.

Guess what? I own a fantastic hunting dog and she has been in Versatile Hunting Dog trials and earned her prizes. But to compare Cookie’s accomplishments in those trials, where the dog competes against itself, to the nonsense we’re being subjected to on the tube, where dogs are running through a fast track of birds, shots, retrieves and on to the next bird without a pause for even a deep breath of air, and all for points and the dog owner’s ego is, in short, bull.

I’ve watched both kinds of field trials and there is no comparison between the Versatile trials and those mockeries of true hunting trials that seem to be taking over. Hunting is NOT about how fast a dog can find the birds and after the shot retrieves the bird. Hunting with a dog is about companionship, watching the dog work the cover and when you make a shot that brings down the bird finding the bird and bringing it to hand. Then the dog and the hunter are truly one. It is a bonding built on many thousands of years of human and dog entwined history.

When the breeder who trained Cookie offered to enter her in the trials I was skeptical but gave in. When I watched the dog that greets me with enthusiasm every time I go to her kennel I became misty-eyed. She was doing what she loved to do and at HER pace. When she retrieved a dead pheasant on one part of the trial she came back with her head high and trotting proudly at her speed. She did it perfectly, by the book and earned her points—for herself without caring one bit about them. When she was finished she plopped down by my feet—exactly where she is as I write this.

No, as far as I am concerned any attempts to compare the field trials that let the dogs compete against themselves, to those abominations on outdoor television, whether it is big game hunting for points or turning a hunting dog’s instincts into a sprint for more points, is a first step down a slippery slope that is greased by greed.

Competitive Hunting--BARF!

2010-03-31T00:49:00.002-05:00

I just watched an episode of Drury Outdoors’ “Dream Season, Redemption” and I came away from the television with exactly the same sense of revulsion that I came away with the first time I tried to watch a Drury Outdoors segment. The company executives may have convinced themselves that they have “revolutionized” outdoor programming but I believe the only thing they are doing is chain handing anti-hunting ammunition to the anti-community.

I want to give you a good understanding of why I reacted so strongly to this program.

First, here are some of my hunting values that relate to this issue:
1. I support ethical trophy hunting. Long ago wildlife biologists convinced me that trophy hunting is a form of predation that removes older bucks and bulls thus allowing their progeny to strengthen the gene pool.
2. I support scoring trophy deer and I support the B&C, Safari Club and other trophy scoring programs. They provide a system of ranking the animal against other animals—not against hunters. Scoring can be for a “found” trophy or one taken by a hunter.
3. I enjoy looking at mounts of trophy deer (and other animals) and both my home and office are adorned with the mounts of big game that I have taken here and in Africa.

But, I can’t buy into the idea of teams of hunters heading into the country for the purpose of shooting deer or other big animals for “points” in a television program. Hunting is not about “points” between competing teams of hunters. The competition, if there is going to be one, is between the hunter and his quarry. Can the hunter overcome the terrain and all the other elements that nature can muster to stop the hunter? I believe this is why the trophy becomes something of importance—the hunter has overcome nature’s obstacles to kill that animal (not harvest, that’s what the biologists do--manage the harvest).

There have been animals I have hunted and the animal won—a lion, a kudu and a magnificent mule deer, all beat me and I am just as proud of those hunts as those when I was successful. As for those store run local big buck contests, I’ve seen and heard of more complaining than compliments and often jealousy among winners and losers in these contests has broken up friendships. Sometimes, when the prize is substantial (which is always a relative term) there have been allegations of cheating that has led to fights, threats and even criminal charges. Contests rarely work and often it is a case of “is the book worth the candle?” when considering a big buck contest.

When I switched off the television this evening I had to think about what I’d watched. The massive deer taken by Bonnie McFerrin, which is supposed to be the largest deer ever killed by a woman hunter in Texas, was fantastic. When I first switched the set on it was right in the middle of her hunt sequence and the deer was crossing in front of her stand. The shot of her hitting the deer with an arrow was excellent photography. In fact, everything about the sequence was well done and I was pleased for her—until I found out that the “score” was for a competitive hunt and at that point I became disgusted. What had been a magnificent trophy became a scorecard, no different than the NFL scoreboard on Sunday afternoon.

My revulsion to competition in hunting is not new. It is rooted in the work of one of our most important authors—Ernest Hemingway. He was an incredibly competitive hunter who was constantly comparing the size of the trophies he killed with those of others on the hunts. He was apparently equally competitive whether shooting pigeons in Cuba, pheasants in Idaho or lions in Africa. But he did recognize one fact about his competitive nature—it was destructive. When he wrote Green Hills of Africa Hemingway’s obsession with being competitive becomes a poison in the camp that taints his hunting and it is a foundational part of the book. An excellent examination of this is the critical study: Hemingway’s Green Hills of Africa As Evolutionary Narrative: Helix and Scimitar by Bredahl and Drake. The authors break the novel down so the destructive nature of the competition on the hunt is clearly understood whether you are an academic or just the average reader interested in learning more about Hemingway’s writing.

I first read Hemingway’s “Green Hills” when I was in what is now Middle School. My father bought me a copy and surprisingly I managed to recognize some of the tension brought about by the competition. Still, I was passionate about the book and it led me to Ruark and many other writers, but the sense of the competition having cast a pall over the hunt stayed with me and I do remember talking with my favorite English teacher (she is also responsible for my becoming a writer) about the book. As I came to understand more of the internal issues of that book (and Hemingway) it generated a guiding principle for me about hunting that has stayed with me—when competition is introduced to the hunt, no matter how good natured the competition may first be—it will create a poison.

Some people in the broadcasting side of our industry may have convinced themselves that competitive hunting programs are good for hunting but I do not agree. Competitive hunting will lead to nothing but problems and poison in the outdoor industry. Those individuals at Drury and The Outdoor Channel may have the First Amendment on their side but they don’t have the welfare of the future of hunting on their minds—all they seem to hear is the clink of silver.

Does anyone agree with me?

glg

The Roadside Scavenger Meat Mart

2010-03-29T23:45:00.002-05:00

I guess winter is mostly over. I’ve got a couple of patches of snow in my yard but they should be gone by Wednesday morning. Now, if nature is just a little cooperative, by the end of the weekend I’ll have my garage and office roof shingled! With that finished just a little touch up paint and a couple of other odds-n-ends and the garage is finished. Okay, I am a slow worker, but it does get done-eventually.

Wife M and I were driving to Grand Forks the other day and just as we left town we passed a bald eagle that was feeding on a deer’s carcass. The bird looked majestic, even if it was ripping the rotting meat out of a deer that had been killed sometime in the winter. On the way into Grand Forks we passed several other decaying carcasses and I started wondering how long it would take for those scavenger roadside meat marts to be cleaned up. A couple of years ago, when I was still driving into Grand Forks several times a week, I watched the road kills decay and be cleaned up by the scavengers—everything from coyotes to eagles got something to eat.

Thinking about that eagle got me to thinking about a deer hunt I was on too many years ago. It was during the time I was running the annual hunting camps for Soldier of Fortune magazine. I would set up camp for the early seasons and invite friends and family to come up and hunt the area before the SOF people, staffers and guests, arrived. On one hunt the early season guests included the outdoor writer Glenn Titus and his wife. Chas was also there and my brother Richard and his son, Terry. The hunting was hard with steep canyons that we had to hike up and down each day. One day Glenn’s wife shot at a deer and while she was sure she’d hit it Glenn couldn’t find any blood trail. The deer’s trail was easy to follow and they were able to follow it into the canyon. They didn’t stop trailing the deer until the canyon became too steep and deep for a practical follow-up. That night, around the campfire, I asked Glenn if he felt bad about not being able to find the deer.

“I feel sorry for my wife,” Glenn explained, “because it was a really good deer, one of those trophies you don’t find very often. But as for the deer, nature will not let it go to waste.”

I’ve often thought about Glenn’s comment—nature will not let it go to waste. He was a trained biologist and had worked for the Oklahoma Fish and Game Department. I always looked up to Glenn and respected his opinions. In the decades since then I have lost the trail of deer both I and my clients had wounded, but eventually I had to give up. Sometimes the trail just disappears.

Ethically we have a responsibility to the deer, to every animal we hunt, to make every effort to recover any game we wound. But how much should we beat ourselves up when we lose an animal? Over the years I’ve lost my share of game, sometimes even Cookie hasn’t been able to find a bird that went down as a cripple. Personally, I think we’ve created a false sense of how much we should beat ourselves up over a cripple or wounded animal. Absolutely, it is always important we make every reasonable effort to recover the animal but at what point do we say “I’ve tried” and go on with our hunt?

Is there a line in the sand? Should a hunter put their lives at risk to recover a wounded animal? Should bird hunters expend so much of their dog’s energy that it could endanger the dog’s ability to make a long retrieve later in the day, either in the water or over the land? Dogs do drown or have heart attacks because they have become exhausted. I have called Cookie off lost birds, even putting her back on a leash to move her away from where the bird had been lost.

Thoughts?
glg

Memories of Us and The Success of Failure

2010-03-25T00:15:00.005-05:00

I can now see the bottom of my boat. That’s really not such a big deal since the bottom of the boat is a jumbled mess of the floatation stuff waiting to be put into place before I put the decking in, then the rest of the stuff for the inside, then finish sanding, then painting. Yeah, you get the idea. My boat is far from finished. But this year I intend to finish her and put her back in the water and spend time on the lake fishing—and writing.

In my redesign and custom remodeling of my 14 ½ foot StarCraft I’ve changed the cabin area around to accommodate “me.” At one time I thought it had to accommodate others. You know, guests, then I decided that it is time I thought about me and what I wanted. So, my customizing of my 60’s era boat has been to fit my wants and needs.

I haven’t really been this fired up about finishing the boat in more than a year, in fact, last summer I barely touched her. That’s not a good idea, because the longer something like a boat sits neglected the more it can degrade and even though she’s an aluminum boat and just a small pleasure boat, I’ve put a lot of work into her to let her develop decay problems. Besides, I’m going to enjoy taking her out and showing off her remodeling. Every little decay that I've allowed in the past year must be repaired before she can go out.

Neglecting a boat is kind of like neglecting the outdoors. Have you ever noticed that when your hunting or fishing partner is gone, whether they’ve moved away, passed on, or can no longer hunt or fish, that it is sometimes hard to get back into the swing of going fishing or hunting? We are social and even things like hunting, which are actually individual actions, we often do in pairs or groups of three or more. There’s also a hierarchy in our hunting camps and though it may not be formally recognized it exists. That is just all part of who we are as humans. We like to share our times, good and bad, with someone else and we like them structured. There are some hunters who share their hunting time with their spouse or significant other. With some of us it is a best friend, or even group of special friends. But most of us do socialize our hunting and fishing.

Whenever there is this talk about sharing the experience and so forth many of us insist that hunting is all about the experience of being outdoors or the sharing. Ortega pointed out that the act of hunting was not complete without the kill. That flies in conflict with the "experience only" belief--doesn't it? The kids I wrote about in my previous post exhibited a need to celebrate their success and share the triumph--all of us do that to one degree or another. But if we want to believe that hunting is about the experience then exactly what is the experience? Is the experience the stalk, the decoys, the morning, the after hunt campfire? Truth is that hunting is all of this and none of this. Hunting is “us” as in what we make of it. Hunting should not be specifically defined as the formal act of stalking and killing a deer or decoying in a duck and killing it. Hunting is defined as how the individual hunter acts out those actions and how the result of that action by the hunter is felt by the hunter and others. The more depth we, as the individual, bring to the table of the hunt the greater the depth of the experience of the hunt is going to be—whether we are sharing that hunt with another or wrapping it up in our own blanket of memories.

The same is true for my boat, “The Olena.” She has waited patiently for me to finish sanding and then painting her hull. For three winters her cabin area has filled with snow and I’ve thought of how “I” want her to be for “me.” I haven’t much changed my thinking about her because most of the time that I will be taking her out to the surrounding lakes I will be alone and I don't mind, it will give me the opportunity to write and maybe catch a fish and also to realize that greatest commodity--to “think.” Maybe about what I want to write or just about the shape of the clouds. They have equal importance on a lazy afternoon.

Suddenly, however, time has become important for me and I want to begin filling The Olena's cabin with memories. Good memories and deep memories. Of friends, grandkids and other family.

In the final analysis isn’t that what most of us want from our hunting experience? Deep memories that we cherish and share with others we believe are worthy of the sharing? We don’t share that perfect going away shot at the last pheasant of the season with just anyone—we share it with someone of importance. They have to be someone who will understand that both the triumph of the clean kill and the failure of a clean miss have equal value in our lives as hunters. Tell me, in what other human activity is failure actually success?

Think about it. glg

Just a Thought

2010-03-23T22:39:00.002-05:00

The flood waters are retreating and there is a hint of the countryside drying out. Of course we could have another storm or two between now and the end of April but I suspect they will be rain, which is fine with me. I’ve had enough of winter. My snow blower worked, it plowed nice canyons that were the walkways between my office, the driveway, the sidewalks and the house. I’m pleased with it.

Something else is happening—the geese are back. A skein of geese flew over yesterday afternoon and I happened to look at the kennel to see Cookie watching the birds. I think she truly does live for the birds. She knows when we should be going hunting and her entire manner changes with the hunting season. I guess she pumps herself up for the season so that by the time I pick up my shotgun she is primed for the hunt. I don’t know if it is the change in weather, the length of the day or if she can smell the birds in nearby fields—and the nearest field with grouse is less than a mile from my house. I’ve never hunted that field, leaving it for the local kids who like to tramp through it in the fall.

I was watching some kids hunt that field last fall. They seemed to have a really great lock on what they were doing. They circled the slough, two boys on each side, and continued up the CRP grass. In my mind I could see the sharptails running before them. Maybe if I had offered to let Cookie hunt for them she would have pinned the birds before the crest. I didn’t, though. I watched and sure enough, as they neared the crest of the hill several grouse flushed and the four shotguns all barked. One grouse did fall and the boy who shot it ran wildly to pick up his bird then held it triumphantly for his buddies to admire. Aren’t we all like that? Shouldn’t we be like that? He was totally unencumbered by the trappings of spiritual quest, connection, in or out of nature and the hunt’s salvation of civilization. He and his buddies were having a good time. Nothing else mattered. Too bad they will all grow up. glg

Thinking Again--Our Legacy's Future

2010-03-16T01:28:00.002-05:00

I’ve been working on the current issue of my literary journal for the outdoor sports media/industry, The Pines Review.” http://pinesreview.magcloud.com The assembly, production and final editing all went according to plan, although a bit late, but the distribution was somewhat stymied by a variety of data problems. The most troublesome was the loss of a significant portion of my reader data base. I’m getting it back together and entered into my computer and I hope that by the time the next issue goes out (May) most of the little problems will be solved and everything will run much smoother.

I’ve also had other issues to deal with, one has been getting a year older. That’s fine with me; I truly don’t mind the passing of time. I also really appreciate all the “Happy Birthday” notes I received, here, by email and snail mail. I look forward to the day when I “pass the outdoor torch” to my grandchildren and I can step aside to let them inherit the outdoors. But then I wondered to myself, “What will be there for them?” “Will we have lost the struggle to preserve our fishing and hunting heritage?”

When I grapple with any question I try to pin down what I am trying to dig out; an answer to a historical or scientific question, or I am looking into some philosophical point. My mind begins to focus and I begin my search and soon enough I find myself buried at my desk with books, notes, clips of essays and articles and a small mound of printouts from various online sources. I emerge from this plunge into the research of questions only for meals, chores and bed (usually late). When I am satisfied with my work I’ve usually got a new collection of thoughts written in my journals. Sometimes I write in my battered Moleskien™ journal that is now held together with duct tape. (It is nearly full.) (My daughter sent me a leather bound, hand-sewn journal that is targeted for specific notes.) On other occasions I type directly into my computer journal. (Years of this sort of research have given me a collection of notebooks of all sizes that are filled with that—notes and thoughts.) The notes I made from books, phone calls, and newspaper and magazine clippings are semi-arranged in a folder along with copies of email conversations on the subject, and then the folder is filed in one of my filing cabinets. The print-outs and full-length copies of articles and essays from magazines, journals and online sources are put in appropriately labeled three-ring binders. As for the books I used, either ones I already had in my library or that I purchased, now have notes in the margins, passages underlined and a flowering of brightly colored Post-It™ notes. Somehow, out of this mishmash of my research, something emerges that I want to write. Maybe it will be polished and finished or maybe it will form the basis of another essay or find its way into some other writing project. The point is that when I ask myself a question I then look for an answer—if one exists.

If you are interested in what emerged from several weeks of this sort of brain activity (When I wasn’t writing a book review, working on The Pines Review, or on my next book.)—read on. You might find it thought provoking—or monumentally boring!

Thoughts on The Hunter’s Relationship to Nature’s “Why?” Question

We are all locked, I believe, in ideological warfare between two prime philosophical camps; one is rooted in the philosophy of “Man The Hunter” The other is rooted in the philosophy of “Man The Scavenger.”

I think in the most basic sense all of us are truly aware of this ideological struggle. It is commonly found in the rhetoric of Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of the HSUS, whose philosophy is a child of Peter Singer’s utilitarian philosophy of equalizing all species. The HSUS, Animal Liberation Front, PETA and others that have sworn to have hunting (and fishing) banned, when they are candled, are found to be flawed. They are flawed in their premise (the white), their argument (the yoke) and their conclusions (the shell). People believe them because it is comfortable to believe that a harmonious, perfect world can be created by willing its existence. To do so they believe banning activities that are the fundamental prescription for human health and survival, and have been for millions of years, will re-define what is human and thus re-define what is nature.

Consider Ardipithecus ramidus, a recently discovered humanoid fossil that has been forcing a radical change in the belief that Lucy was the oldest human fossil. Neither Lucy nor Adri existed outside of their nature. If either of these pieces of evolutionary evidence was not providing researchers a closer, more defining understanding of the truth of humans within nature then Pacelle and his followers might find a more solid claim to our having evolved beyond hunting.
Our relationship to nature is more evolutionary complex than a statement of a collective “need” to define being human. Our relationship is deeply intertwined with a spiritual relationship that is identified by Dr. Eaton in his books--our relationship is defined by God, thus nature. There is nothing in the Pacelle/Singer/Regan writings that can define or give comprehension to that time when early humans emerged from the wilderness of simple survival to the dawn of questions and stood, clothed in fur, with a simple spear in hand and formed in their minds the two questions that drive humanity forward. “Why?” and “How?” Why is answered by God and nature while the “How?” is that which humans have been driven to answer.

“How?” is the question that has driven humans forward since the very dawn of cognitive thought emerged from instinct. How to be warm? How to find food to maintain life? How to protect the family from predators? The list is infinite.

Surrounding each individual since that dawn has been both the question and the answer to “Why?” which has always been “Because the universe is so.” And, if God made the universe then it is because God made it so. In this debate, whether one believes God is the maker of all, or the universe is all evolution’s product after the bang, the indisputable fact remains that humans are within nature and nature within humans. Hunting is within nature, hence within humans. Defining and understanding all of the variables of that truth is the study of “Why?”

Every value of “Why?” within that truth of nature serves to define each object that exists but no value can exist when an object being defined is removed from nature. When any object, animate or inanimate, is removed from nature it cannot be spiritual, it cannot possess good or bad, it can only exist without any relationship to define it--including a relationship to (with) God. I believe that removal is the failure of the anti-hunter philosophers, whether Singer, Pacelle, Steve Best or Tom Regan, and the others. For their arguments to be valid humans must be removed from nature but humans that are outside of nature cannot be spiritual, cannot be close to God, cannot have true relationships with others—which includes all things and actions, because it is only within nature that things exist and know each other. A proof of this is in the opening of a virtual universe. Before any virtual object can exist the virtual universe must be created and then from outside that virtual universe an object is created within that universe and it must grow and change—it evolves within its nature and all objects that it interacts with must also exist within that virtual nature or they cannot exist at all. If that object is given the virtual gene to hunt, as is common in RPGs, that object cannot deny it is a hunter.

Whenever I have read an argument against hunting, regardless of the basis for that argument, when I candle the argument against known truths the argument is always flawed. I do not maintain that every pro hunting argument is flawless—usually when the argument is dramatic for the sake of drama it will collapse of its own lack of supporting truths.

When I consider the inheritance I will leave behind I realize it must be a legacy of our standing firm against the philosophies that want us outside nature, because if we acquiesce to those philosophies we have placed limits on our survival. Humanity cannot maintain itself if it is outside of nature because it is, itself, of nature.

What do you think? Really!

Best,
Galen

Sorry

2010-02-25T16:19:00.003-06:00

I want to apologize to my readers about that comment that was posted regarding my previous post. Apparently it was a scam post designed to send you to unacceptable sites. Holly caught it and I am very grateful to her. Just once, before I get too old to do it, I would like to catch one of those scum bags who use the Internet to expose well meaning people to their porn, trash and scams. I want to be locked in a room with one of those scum bags. I don't want my cane or boxing gloves. I just want to beat one of them to a bloody pulp so that every time they look in a mirror they know that the people's justice can find them.
We can all dream--right?
Thanks Holly.
glg

The Olympics

2010-02-24T23:39:00.003-06:00

I don't know how many of you are watching the Olympics but I have always enjoyed them and this year I seem to be going native (North Dakota) and watching events I hadn't in the past.
Oh well, now back to the tube.
glg

The Hunting Essence

2010-02-21T23:19:00.003-06:00

In our discussions have we answered any questions, and if we have what do we accomplish through our answers or failures? I was wondering about that question, whether our discussions have any true purpose and not self-stroking of our egos, when I popped over to Eric’s blog (Fair Chase) and read his thread, “On the role of physical effort in Hunting.” The essence of what I read is an implied agreement that for hunting to be hunting there must be some effort expended to get the game. That is, I believe, a fundamental principle of hunting. Can sitting in a blind and waiting for game be considered an expenditure of effort? I think it can but not when the game comes to the blind because it has no choice. If a feeder or bait is placed in front of the blind then the effort expended is lost. But what about the effort of planting a feeding plot right in front of a permanent blind? Isn’t caring for the plot through the summer an expenditure of effort?
In every discussion that I’ve read I find myself returning to the same principle I offered in January:
Ethics = Skill U Nature.
In so many of our discussions we seem to be focusing our questions on the actions of the hunter and I think we’re in agreement that the hunter needs to employ skill, which includes restraint and effort in the hunt. Isn't calling or camouflage part of effort or is effort only the more physical, as in deep woods hunting?
Nature is insuring that the game has every opportunity to employ their natural defenses to avoid the hunter. Suppose we take that concept farther along and deal with what is included in Skill and Nature. Here’s a start:
Skill = Marksmanship, stealth skills, calling skills – what else?
Nature = Sight, hearing, camouflage, speed, stamina – what else?
Ideas?
glg

Pines Review Published

2010-02-19T15:25:00.004-06:00

Hi Everyone!
Sorry to have been absent the past few days but between weather, feeling like crap a couple of times and trying to get The Pines Review into publication/print I've been out of it. However, the review is published and for those of you who have requested it the free PDF version has been Emailed. But, if you would like to order a print copy, here's the address.

If you enjoy outdoor writing, or you are an outdoor writer who cares about your work I think you'll get something out of this issue. I would also love to hear your comments. I can only improve it if you tell me what is good and bad so I can make the changes where needed.
Now, off for a couple of "honey do's" and I'll be back later to finish a "thinking" post.
best,
Galen
PS I want to thank all of you for sticking with me on this Blog. YOU have given me mountains of stuff to think about! glg

A Response To Questions

2010-02-10T00:38:00.002-06:00

Okay, I'm back, although I had to use the snow thrower again today. The city plow drivers thought it would be fun to bury my walkway that goes from the sidewalk to the street. Anyway, now I'll try and answer some questions. J

Tovar asked me to clarify my statement regarding my problems with "the integration of Native American spiritualism into the psychic of the American hunter as a cure-all for what ails hunting to provide "the" answer to why we hunt."

The problem is this: Hunting, as we all know, is under constant attack and hunters are being asked to explain the "why" of their desire (or need) to hunt. The majority of hunters, when asked this question stumble about for an explanation. Why should they produce an answer other than one I heard from Peter Capstick when asked about why he did something: "because it pleases me." But, that answer is then redefined as being selfish, blah, blah. In other words most answers can be turned against the hunter. A strong moral explanation for many hunters is provided through spiritual connections. A foundation for this explanation can be found in the commonly shared experience (among hunters) that they do experience a spiritual connection with nature when hunting. Some hunters take this explanation a step further and acknowledge a spiritual connection with the animals they hunt. It is easy to take this perfectly legitimate relationship between the hunter and nature and combine it with Native American spiritualism. This combination, some believe, provides an iron clad explanation for hunters. It doesn't. To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely no connection between North American Native Spiritualism as it relates to hunting and hunters, and the evolution of Western Civilization and hunting. In fact, as early as the time of Herodotus there were rumblings against sport hunting by non-hunting, urbanized Greeks. But hunting remained a significant part of the social landscape and has persisted for all these millennium—so why? I believe hunting exists within our genetic makeup, whether we live in the city or on a farm. It exists because we came from predators (the "scavenger/gather" theory has long been put to rest). Even our closest living relatives in the genetic forest hunt and kill when it suits them (and they will also periodically practice cannibalism, just a side note). Simply put, I maintain we hunt because of who we are. If humans had been denied that predator's gene what odds for survival would you have given the human race? As for suppression of the need to answer that predator's gene, I'm sure therapists have field days trying to unscramble that mess!

My principle of being responsible for animals is quite simple. It began with a long term project for Soldier of Fortune magazine. In the mid-80s I wrote a series of articles on the animal rights movement. As a result of my research (which spanned several years) I found myself trying to position myself on the question of animal rights. What I finally settled on was the principle that "animals do not have rights—people have responsibilities." A deep analysis of my statement produces a wide range of supporting statements, all of which end with the premise that we are responsible for the survival and welfare of animals, domestic and wild. As an example consider the black rhino. In 1993 I had the opportunity to spend several days with Peter Hitchins (founder of the SA Save the Rhino and Elephant Trust) and he pointed out why losing the rhino would be catastrophic—more than 600 symbiotic species of bugs, beetles, etc. would also become extinct. Hitchins pointed out that we alone are responsible for the near extinction of the rhino, in part from over hunting and in large part because we insist on altering the habitat. No other species on this planet now, nor at any time in history, has had the capability to change, and has changed, the entire eco system of earth. We, as a species, have chosen to use this ability to make these changes. That makes us responsible for every other living thing on this planet. Thus, we do not maintain a species to hunt them; we maintain the species because it is our responsibility. We hunt because it is who we are, not because it is who we want to be. That is why we feel that spiritual connection between ourselves and nature when we hunt—we are of nature.

Holly, I hope that I've addressed your question about my position on responsibility for animals. I don't see it as patronizing but as accepting our responsibilities (stewards of the earth simplifies it, I suppose). I suppose we could fine tune the statement from "for" and use "to" except when we say "for" aren't we using the prepositional to indicate that our actions are intended to provide for their welfare (survival)? J At least I hope I've managed to explain myself.

My feminist statement does deserve expansion. As I said earlier, we find ourselves faced with two distinct feminist movements—outside and inside hunting. The movement outside hunting, that attacks hunting, insists that hunting is a physical manifestation of male dominance over females. Perhaps nowhere else is this more fully defined than in Brian Luke's essay "Violent Love: Hunting, Heterosexuality, And The Erotics of Men's Predation," published in the 1998 (24.3) Feminists Studies. There have also been a number of excellent essays published in Environmental Ethics over the past few years and hunting is frequently vilified as being a form of male gender domination. These claims are found throughout contemporary culture. My primary field of study has been in literature but I want to emphasize that the attacks against hunting are not new and we should not do history a disservice by implying that the hunting debate is new (last 200 years). These attacks, as I've pointed out previously, extend as far back in history as the concept of sport hunting.

As I read Dr. Smalley's essay "The Modern Diana" I was pleased to see how thoroughly she explores the literature, especially the male voice in it. I am really pleased that we have followed many of the same text trails in our research. I would like to have seen, however, a bit more history on the evolution of outdoor literature's male voice. The later 19^th century incorporation of the feminine voice to soften the male writing was a strong retreat from the direction men's writing had been taking. The early 19^th century direction was in large part a response to the claims of the softening of the American male after the revolution and it was attempts to boost American masculinity. (Remember, we had performed rather badly in the War of 1812 except for a few Marines, sailors and Andrew Jackson's rabble, a lesson not lost on the press who were criticizing America's manhood.) Americans needed heroes and strong, independent, virile, men who were successful hunters (and could deal with the blood side) were also thought to be good defenders of the nation. That underlying premise has not been abandoned and one of the most obvious studies of this was in 1978's The Deer Hunter. The way I read Dr. Smalley's work is that women's role in hunting has evolved from one of justification of the sport (the feminizing) to a search for equalizing of roles in hunting. This is also the conclusion I have reached in my own work and I'm curious if you agree. Today, as the role of women has changed, women inside hunting have increasingly clashed with the outside feminist movement which is pushed from behind by anti-hunting elements.

How's that long-winded reply? Answer any questions and, I hope, create more that we can discuss?

glg

As I See The Problem’s Emergence

2010-02-07T23:33:00.002-06:00

Eric, Tovar, Holly and Everyone!

I am going to offer a long answer; I hope you'll stay with me on this and I'll be looking for everyone's response.

I'm in complete agreement on the value of Herman's book. I have made extensive use of his book during both my graduate work and in my professional research and I continue to keep it on my bookshelf. HUNTING & AMERICAN IMAGINATION is an ideal starting point for any deep research into the history of hunting and attached issues if no other reason than because of Herman's well developed bibliography. Herman does make a strong case for "the cult of [Daniel] Boone" and its influence on Roosevelt, Grinnell and others.

We need to keep in mind; however, that Boone's character was more manufactured by the necessities of the post-colonial period rather than from reality. What was needed in that time frame was a national return to the ideals that Boone and similar characters represented. This need, in large part, emerged because of the period's domination by what some believed was a "dandy" or clerk persona that lacked American traditions of strong masculinity and individualism. When we review the literature of the period, and the preceding 18^th century, we can easily see that hunting, and of course hunters, were spoken of despairingly from the American (and English) pulpit and unfairly compared to the privileged aristocracy that we'd separated ourselves from. The relationship between colonial culture and Native Americans was not cooperative but combative and the Native American's hunting skills and traditions were treated as barbaric and their relationship to nature proof that their conversion to Christianity was essential because their conversion not only saved their souls but went hand-in-hand with the clearing of wilderness by the Christian pioneers. With this sort of pressure on the majority of young men, notably through the period following the revolution and War of 1812, it is no wonder that as the Jacksonian era emerged with its emphasis on the developing middle and mercantile class, America's forward thinking leaders turned to the Boone legacy as the rightful image for the American male. This is also the time when Henry Herbert (aka Frank Forrester, the father of modern outdoor writing) began his writing career and his writing played on this need for the Boone model. Herman points out, however, that these re-emerging American ideals of individualism and self-sufficiency repeatedly clashed with a majority of the Christian leadership that was still clinging to Colonialism's Puritan principles. In large part this clash was fueled by the continued push for the complete assimilation of Native American culture and all that it stood for. (This push, in various forms, continued right into the 1950s and even the early sixties and it included the elimination of native languages.)

Post Civil War society brought with it a growth of class divisions and with those class divisions, most notably in the later two decades of the 19^th century (the Gilded Age), there was a very strong movement in this country to set hunting apart as a "privilege" much as it had become in Europe. I believe that one of the greatest gifts Theodore Roosevelt gave the nation was his Badlands Epiphany (took place sometime on one of his last hunting trips from his ranch in the badlands) in which he suddenly recognized that hunting plays a fundamental role in a democracy and because hunting promotes the individualism and self-sufficiency that are cornerstones of American thought hunting was (and remains) essential to maintaining our freedom and is a right of each person regardless of wealth or social position.

As I see it, hunting and the nation grew pretty much on parallel tracks and even World War II failed to significantly impact it but in the early Sixties there was a series of events that threw hunting into a tailspin: JFK's assassination, Hemingway's suicide, the growth of the Vietnam War and the emergence of a strong feminist movement. The JFK problem brought about a plethora of gun control movements and laws, Hemingway's suicide signaled a questioning of the validity of male gender values that had been central to many of the male-driven and associated principles of the 20^th century, and this was coincidental to the growth of a strong feminist movement that directly challenged many of those male values and principles. (Many of these challenges were rightly so.) Finally, before there was any resolution of these issues our nation was deeply embroiled in the Vietnam War and all that it entailed. The feminist movements, with so many of its roots in World War II, truly flourished during the Vietnam era. The Vietnam and post Vietnam eras are also clearly distinguished as the time frame when many Americans began to substitute Native American concepts of spiritual relationships for what had been the independence and self-sufficiency that had dominated the image of the American hunter and coincidently the American male. This is when hunting truly began to flounder. Certainly the migration to urban areas, especially following the Korean War period and the influence of the Cold War, contributed to this separation from nature (there are some good books on this issue, the separation from nature, which I am reading even as I think about and write this). If you take the high points of each of these "issues" and enter them into the changing paradigm of the mental state of the nation you will see that Native American Spiritualism was becoming increasingly popular across the culture as America floundered.

That said, I am having problems with this integration of Native American spiritualism into the psychic of the American hunter as a cure-all for what ails hunting and to provide "the" answer to why we hunt. I do not deny the spiritual relationship that exists between man and animal and correspondingly between the hunter and the animal and thus by simple extension into the psychic of the hunter. We see this spiritual connection every day between our pets (I hate that word) and people. There are so many examples they could fill volumes of books. And yes, I have made eye contact with game, everything from deer to geese and many times with game in Africa. There have been times when I pulled the trigger and times when I did not. But, all that said, my foundational principle is that we are responsible for all animals. I try to let that principle guide me through everything that I do in nature. That responsibility extends to recognizing that when I do kill an animal I must not waste that animal's life.

Looking forward to your responses to this post, I think these are great opportunities to explore the depths of critical issues and even our own belief systems.

Hijacking Culture?

2010-02-05T21:44:00.004-06:00

One of the reasons I bring this up (the spiritual movement in hunting) is that I do have some personal experience (family and close friends) in the area of Native American culture. I am no expert by any means and welcome any comments but one of the comments that has been made to me (on more than one occasion) was that whites (or Europeans, take your pick) have hijacked aspects of Native American culture as a replacement for parts of their culture that has been lost because of religious pressures. Is it possible that we are seeing this desire to incorporate Native American (and other aboriginal peoples) belief systems into ours because our own culture (white, Anglo-Saxon, Judeo-Christian) has become determined to separate us from nature?
Tough subject to think about isn't it?
glg

The Spirtual Hunter?

2010-02-05T01:46:00.002-06:00

I’ve been deep in the reading of Randall Eaton’s books and I am fascinated by what he writes. The biggest focus of his work, as I understand it, is exploring the spiritual relationship between the animal and the hunter. I really don’t dispute much of what he is writing but I am curious how others view this spiritual relationship. Is it a carryover movement from the 1960s interest in the Native American Cultures? I don’t know how many of you remember the surge of interest in everything connected with the Native Americans but that decade did have a profound influence on a lot of people. I am not referring to the phony apologists who tried to capture aspects of the movement to justify every excess from drugs to sex. There was a serious movement that was focused on gaining a deeper understanding of the cultures that had been nearly destroyed and wherever possible preserving these cultures and it is from this movement that I suspect today’s interest in the connection between the spiritual and hunting.
I am really curious to hear how other view the spiritual movement within hunting.
Thoughts?
glg

Make it Simple?

2010-01-26T00:14:00.002-06:00

After an afternoon bout of clearing heavy, wet, deep snow from around M’s car and little M’s car, I planned to sit down and work on a comment for the ethics thread. I almost made it—until sleep took over. I spent the entire next day recovering and then today was spent putting the finishing touches on the next issue of “The Pines Review.” It is now off to the final proofreading and now I can focus.

The Problem….. As I see it.

The more time I have spent reading about hunting ethics and the debate surrounding it, the more I am convinced we are all determined to create such a complicated issue that we’re doing more damage than good. Let’s return to something I offered at the start of this thread--early civilization. As Man moved from the hunter/gatherer to animal husbandry and agriculture the need to hunt for survival was replaced with sport hunting. Without drifting into the discussion of spiritual need being in our genes let’s try another approach and that is focusing only on the sport aspect of the hunt. In developing the sport of hunting it became essential for the hunter to have rules of conduct. You can return to the other post to review this evolution but the key is this statement:

Ethics = Skill U Nature

Simply stated: Ethics EQUALS The Sum of the hunter’s skills AND The Animal’s nature to survive.

Here is what I am advocating. (And, I think, Phillip, you and I are on the same page thought not saying it exactly the same way.) We need to stop trying to complicate the issue with complex definitions and limitations. If we agree that the key to being an ethical hunter is full use of skills and allowing the game to fully use their natural ability to survive then the outcome is ethical hunting. If we can accept that premise does this become a functional foundation to build on?

Is it a starting point?

Glg

A Reply to John, whoever "John" Is

2010-01-13T22:08:00.002-06:00

There was an interesting comment by someone named “John” to my Christmas post about the memories of my dogs and cats, all stemming from the card Michelle had bought about our pets meeting us in heaven. It seems John, whoever John is, didn’t like my post and probably does not like any of my posts because John offered the opinion that (1) he (or she) hoped all the animals I shot would be waiting for me in heaven and (2) I wasn’t going there anyway. The inferred text being that I was condemned to hell. It is an interesting comment because it bears witness to something that I have observed about people who fall into that group of naysayers who only see the brutality of hunting and quickly lump hunting into the same category as dog fighting, cock fighting and other staged animal fights--they are rarely truly happy people. Hunters understand there is a brutality to the hunt and that brutality is shared equally throughout nature, just as Tennyson observed:

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law—
Though Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrieked against his creed—
(Tennyson, In Memoriam 56:13-16)

There is nothing beautiful in the death of any living thing, whether that thing is a tree, deer, duck or fish. There is simple brutality in the death but it is nature’s brutality and from that death life emerges. It is that simple. The deer that I have killed did not die a movieland idealized majestic death of the hart. They bled, they died. I have always said a prayer of “thanks” for the gift of the deer or other game and on numerous occasions followed the European tradition of the last bite, adding the last breath because I have always felt that kinship with nature. (A few years ago a long time friend reminded me that I’ve always talked to trees.) The same is true of ducks, geese, and any other animal I’ve killed. I killed them for food and I’ve relished every bite and taste of their wildness because in that wildness I can sense mountains, plains, rivers and lakes, everything that is nature. Still, we must accept that in our hunting there is a brutality of the hunt, but the hunters I’ve spoken with have all acknowledged there is also an indefinable fullness of spirit that comes to them after a successful hunt and it returns when they sit down to a dinner prepared with the meat from the animal. It is a fullness that shows itself in closeness with friends and a deeper love for family. At the end of the hunting day, when the hunter drinks in the last of the alpenglow, there is no doubt that they are part of a grand world.

I am not so vain to believe every hunter is as mindful as those I tend to hunt with but the numbers of those for whom hunting does not tug at the heart are so small they are insignificant. Tragically, as with everything in our world today, it is the rage and stupidity of a few that paints all the good works of the many. We have to live with that.

I feel sorry for “John” because I suspect that when we peel back the thin veneer of his or her life that person is not very happy with the world they live in and don’t see it as a grand and wonderful place where nature defines us through everything around us. John also doesn’t “get” something about me—I hope the spirit of every animal I killed on my hunts is there to meet me in heaven so that I can again thank each one of them for what they did for me in this world.

As for John’s opinion that I am not going to heaven, well, John, that may be so but that’s between God and me. As for how I feel about it, I’m pretty sure I’m going to heaven because between 1967 and 1969 I served my time in hell. Have you, or is your world a personal hell?

glg

An Approach To The Hunter Ethic Problem

2010-01-13T01:01:00.002-06:00

This is a truly long post. I think it needs to be.

The principle of hunter’s skill, game’s nature is one that I am going to stand firm with because I do believe that this is the grounding ethic of hunting. At any point where the hunter steps outside of the hunter’s expression then the ethic breaks down and it is also true that if the hunter, or someone other than the hunter, removes the quarry from its ability to employ its nature then the ethic breaks down. But with that said I believe we must consider Holly’s question about the planted birds and whether we can apply this ethic to nearly any human action (I’m inferring here) that involves the killing of animals. She rightly points out that at one time humans would drive whole herds of bison over the cliffs. But, Holly, isn’t that subsistence hunting—from which early civilizations distinguished sport hunting? When the need to hunt for food has been replaced by husbandry does Man need to hunt? Both Dr. Eaton and Cork offer the opinion that Man needs to hunt because through hunting man is maintaining the spiritual connection with nature. Let’s say, as the Greeks noted, that hunting provides people with the opportunity to test their personal selves against nature. We might be tempted to argue that the rules of hunting, the notion of sportsmanship, ethical hunting, etc., were put in place only to level the playing field between the hunter and the hunted. However, Dr. Eaton, James Swan and others have all noted that the cave art, which depicts hunters and their quarry, seems to have religious or spiritual meanings. Dr. Eaton takes it a step farther and points to some cave art being trophy art, meaning that successful hunters of these pre-civilization eras were bragging about their hunting success. What does seem to be certain is that much of this early human art does establish a much stronger connection between the hunter and the quarry than previously thought and that in the genetic chain between contemporary humans and those early humans there is a hunting gene. But, where did we get our ethic? Here’s the problem that I see.

Subsistence hunting – whatever it takes to be successful therefore zero ethics.
Animal husbandry replaces subsistence hunting – The dynamics of relationships change from the successful hunter to the successful farmer/herder.
Hunting becomes a sport – The birth of hunter ethics = “hunter skill, animal nature.” Why?

What was it in that transition that made men stop using whatever would work to kill an animal to employing a set of specific skills to kill it and then, in an equal fashion, giving the animal the opportunity to employ their nature to survive? I believe that if Eaton, Swan and others are correct in their assertions then I will maintain the development of hunter ethics occurred “because” of the transition. Men could certainly have continued to kill the animals in the same way that they had been but they did that out of need, yet even in that need early man recognized that a connection existed between the hunter and the hunted. Perhaps they drank at the same water holes and early gatherers noticed that many of the animals ate from the same fruit trees, berries, nuts or even roots. The animals were not completely unlike Man and because Man did possess that added element of creativity (art) they wanted to maintain the connection—even as they hunted the animals—because there was a connection between them that was within nature.

Jump forward a few tens of thousands of years to the transition to herder societies. The connection between the animals and man was not forgotten. The desire to hunt, the drive to provide food hadn’t disappeared, but in order for the success to have that same meaning it had before husbandry evolved there evolved a self imposed set of rules for the hunt. Hunter ethics did not burst fully developed into the civilized world, it came with the creep of time and has evolved as civilization has evolved. That begs the question of application of hunter ethics—can it be applied equally to each hunting circumstance. Native pointed out that in our own country each region has its own specific conditions for the hunt. I will make the argument that it is not the application of circumstance to the ethic but is, in fact, ethic to the circumstance. The basic hunter ethic equation is:
Skill - Nature
I wonder if we could write it as:
Skill U Nature
That is to say that the ethic is the union of the two. This means that it is ethical to hunt from that enclosed and elevated stand when the conditions warrant it. The same can be said of the planted birds. I’ve hunted planted birds that taxed every bit of both the dog’s skill and my own. In fact, I can’t remember any bird hunt that hasn’t been a true test of both dog and hunter—planted or not. But what about the high fence hunt? My answer returns to the ancient ethic and the application of the ethic to the circumstance. I have hunted high fence enclosures and left without the animal I hunted. I’ve also hunted them hard and been successful. About fifteen years ago I hunted fallow deer in upstate New York and it was one of the most rewarding and difficult hunts of my life. I finally got my deer but not until the morning of the last day and not until I’d low crawled through a foot of snow to get close enough for a shot. The enclosed area was slightly more than two thousand acres but as Native pointed out, the deer were wild and had become wild even though fed by humans.

Anonymous made a very interesting point and that was that if the elimination of high fence hunting “means less people can hunt, that’s a population/demand/habitat/management problem. It’s not a hunting problem.”

Humm. I want to disagree but before I do let’s look at two very different scenarios. The first is my hunt for the Fallow deer. The hunt was a high fence hunt that took three full days of intense dawn to dusk hunting. Often times we (the guide and I) would be following a group for the entire day without seeing the deer. Now, here is where ethic is applied to the circumstance. These deer were fed every day from the back of a trailer pulled by a tractor. When the tractor started down a feeding road the deer emerged from the woods to feed. In the application of the ethic to the circumstance the guide and I had agreed that we would not ambush any deer headed for the food nor would we hunt any stretch of road where they were fed. Only after I had killed my deer did the guide inform me that had I suggested hunting the deer on a feeding road the hunt would have ended. On the other hand wild hogs, which raided the deer’s feed, were fair game while raiding the deer food—if you could get close enough for a shot! Ethic applied to circumstance.

The second scenario is in Africa. There is a great deal of debate about the practice of “turning lions out for the hunter.” In these cases ranch owners are raising or capturing lions and when a hunter books a lion hunt they turn the lion out in the fenced area and the hunter goes in after the lion. Some operations turn these lions out in areas covering thousands of acres and weeks or months before the hunter arrives and others have only a few hundred acres and turn out the lion a few days before the hunter arrives. One of the arguments for these operations is that it helps reduce the instances of operators “salting” an area where a hunter has booked a lion hunt. In salting, unscrupulous PHs set out baits to attract the lions and the hunter is “guided” to the salted area where the lion has come to expect a free meal.

Contrast that with my lion hunting experience. I had hunted a particular ranch the year before and was back for another hunt (yes, it is high fence, all 7,000 acres) when I was offered a chance to hunt a lion that crossed onto the ranch, probably from nearby Kruger park. The ranch owner and I began following the spoor with a tracker and for several days we hunted the lion, getting up in the morning and driving around the ranch until we cut fresh spoor then following the spoor on foot. The only condition for shooting the lion was to shoot well because I probably wouldn’t get a second shot—the reason being the shot would be at close range because of the thick thorn bush we were hunting in and the lion would charge before I would get that second shot. Finally the lion left the ranch and life returned to normal. On the same ranch, the year before, a hunter (in our group) and his PH were driving across the ranch when they spotted a young lion stretched out across a pile of dirt. The guide told the hunter to kill the lion but when the hunter declined the guide argued with him and finally convinced his client to shoot the lion, which he did. In both cases the big cats were a threat to the human population on the ranch and painful experience had taught the ranch owner and the PH that if the big cats are allowed to roam free they quickly find the clusters of native rondavels and the livestock kept nearby.

To which case is there an ethic being applied to circumstance? Perhaps the ranch owner and I were trying to apply an ethic to circumstance by hunting on foot and tracking the lion across the ranch. It had all the earmarks of a hell of a hunt because there were times when the cat wasn’t more than a few dozen yards in front of us, but hidden by the thick bush and the cat was aware that we were tracking it, periodically stopping to growl a warning for us to back off. But was there an ethic with the sleeping lion? I’ve never thought so, nor has any hunter to whom I have told the story even though they understood that because of the risks the cat had to be killed. Finally, there is the “turning out” and “salting.” Maybe in turning out, if the lion is given time to establish itself in a large enough enclosure ethic is applied to circumstance providing the lion is free to make its own kills and the enclosure isn’t being salted.

Anynomus feels that if there isn’t enough room to hunt then it is not a hunting problem but a people problem. I still can’t agree although I do understand the statement and its intent. I think we need to look at this from the perspective that if we apply two foundational rules to hunting then we arrive at the principle that hunting can be preserved and made available to both the pay to hunt group on high fence hunts and the public land/open range group. First, there is the ethic, ancient though it is:
Hunting Ethic = Hunter’s Skill U Animal’s Nature.
The second is:
Ethic over Circumstance.
Applied to contemporary hunting we have an ethic and an application. I also remain firm that we need to make every person who hunts understand this one thing, whether hunting high fence or open range, everything ethical about the hunt is nothing more than the tug on the shirt sleeve.
Thoughts?
glg

Hunting's Oldest Problems

2010-01-09T01:27:00.006-06:00

I have received some truly great comments and it is obvious you are all thinking about hunting and that’s what we need to do as hunters—think about this sport we love—hunting.

Am I correct in assuming that all of you are arguing that we cannot establish a line in the sand that is the division between the ethical and non-ethical behavior of hunters?

What if I offered the argument that I disagree—that we can, in fact, draw a line in the sand? What if I even went much farther and argued that the line in the sand was drawn very early in human civilization. If we go back into ancient history we will discover that the notion of fair chase, ethical hunting (sportsmanship)both appear early in hunting’s history, very nearly the same time as when subsistence hunting was replaced by animal husbandry. The notion was that since there was no need to kill the animal for food then the animal should be provided with every opportunity to employ its every nature to escape the hunter. Here’s the kicker---AND the hunter should employ his (her) every skill to quickly kill the animal. These teachings, which predate the Greek and Persian thinking on sport hunting, were focused on the hunter’s skill and the animal’s nature being fully employed. As subsequent civilizations developed (and disappeared) these two principles remained ab origine and are the root of outdoor’s hunting philosophy, regardless of the philosopher.

So, my argument is that the hunter must allow the animal the opportunity to employ its nature to escape while also employing his (or her) skill as a hunter to insure as quick and clean a kill as is possible. Does this apply to the subsistence hunter? Interestingly, most peoples who still rely on true subsistence hunting strive for the quick kill (quick can be by slow poison, but the animal never panics) to preserve the quality of the meat and reduce the amount of distance the meat, hide and other parts must be returned to the village or family group. But, in essence, we should probably say no, it does not apply, but in truth the careful subsistence hunter wants the quick kill for other reasons.

That said I’ll maintain that the line in the sand has been drawn and it returns to the hunter. I personally enjoy hunting waterfowl from a permanent blind, whether it is built on stilts over the marshland or is a pit in the ground. I also derive a great deal of satisfaction from setting up a block of decoys on a slough then hiding in the cattails. I can also see deer and other big game hunts in my own future in which I will be hunting from a blind or hide and some of them will be over waterholes. I’ll also hunt from a tree stand when the need arises. But the question is whether I the hunter will employ both sides of the ethical equation—hunter’s skill, game’s nature. Does the use of the blind over a food plot provide for the animal’s nature? I am not so sure it does but that does not mean I cannot be convinced. In the case of the blind on a marshland where the birds return to the same area day after day—the birds are not stupid so if they persist in flying near the blinds where they are shot at something else must be at work. Is it hunter’s skill, the weather, or a combination in which case the skill may be reading the weather’s influence and how to set the block of decoys. Is the hunting of planted birds unethical? Planted birds that are properly raised can humble a confident hunter as quickly as a neophyte. What about driven hunts? It isn’t uncommon for the birds in driven hunts to be pen raised birds and the survivors are called back to the pen at the end of the day. Still, some of my most memorable bird hunts were for planted birds.

These are the questions and the issues that have dogged sport hunting since husbandry made subsistence hunting unnecessary. So, is hunting unnecessary? I maintain that hunting is necessary. But that’s another question.

You see, guys, what I am offering is the question and then reaching behind the question to the next question. The only question for which I maintain there is an answer is the question of hunter ethics and that is because I believe that this question was answered thousands of years ago—hunter’s skill, quarry’s nature. Because this is the foundational premise of hunting then even the high fence hunt, if it answers the second part, and the hunter employs the first part, can be ethical. The hunt for planted pheasants can be ethical provided both sides are employed. I do not believe this is a difficult answer to reach although there are times when the questions which lead to it are complex and demand difficult answers.

Another historical notation, but please don’t ask me to reach for it right now, is in my pile of research papers and that is a translation of some early Persian writings in which “fair chase” when hunting is discussed as being important to the sporting hunt. In that instance fair chase was making reference to not employing so many hunters on the chase of a single animal that the animal could not employ its natural defenses. It was believed that the king could not ascertain which of his young men were not brave hunters when they were not being fair to the chase; thus he could not weigh each young man’s value as a soldier. This is an early reference to the martial side of hunting.

Thus, both fair chase and ethical hunting, which we want to believe are more recent innovations, are actually ancient concepts. Our problem today is figuring out how these principles apply in contemporary hunting and through the application of these principles we can overcome some of the negatives that are dogging us and improve the quality of hunting.

It is to these problems that I am proposing the thinking symposium.

Thoughts? g

Has "Fair Chase" Changed?

2010-01-07T03:05:00.002-06:00

Is “fair chase” still fair? I am not so sure it is. Perhaps the notion of fair chase that so many of us grew up with has started to undergo some changes that none of us could have possibly foreseen a decade or two ago. I raise this point because I was sitting out this storm by watching some outdoor TV programs while I sorted receipts (tax time, ugh). In one program, the hunter, a thoroughly charming and very pretty blond with her hair tied up in a bouncy pony tail that brought to mind Chantilly Lace and the Big Bopper, was deer hunting from a camouflaged hunting blind. The deer were thoroughly accustomed to the blind because it is a permanent fixture of their world. Doused, as I am sure she was, in scent killer and wearing camouflage, the only skill required was a good sight picture, trigger squeeze and the patience to wait for a “killer buck.” When it appeared, she waited until it was clear of any does and within easy range, then sighted through the scope and killed the buck. Whoopee and hand slapping, the deer ran across the field and fell over dead. She didn’t even need to negotiate a climb down from a tree stand.

Now, let’s be clear—I have hunted from tree stands, elevated blinds (hides) for deer and other game and I have killed my share from them and until just recently (actually, as a product of digging deeper into Eaton’s writing) I hadn’t thought too much about hunting from big game blinds. Now, as the universe of hunting is assaulted on all sides I am having second thoughts about some of the accepted methods of hunting—id est, the hunting blind that is a permanent fixture in the small universe that is the deer’s world. Thinking back on some of my African hunting experiences I have realized that the most rewarding, and the hunts that became the basis of my articles and short stories, were the hunts when we (Professional Hunter, tracker and me) stalked the quarry, whether it was a kudu, waterbuck or lion and accepted the rigors of the stalk as the hunt. Does the mean I am opposed to the use of stands for big game hunting? Not at all. There are many, many places where still hunting and an attempt to stalk an animal is to guarantee an empty tag.

I am not claiming a moral high ground here. I’ve killed several meat hogs that wandered into range of my rifle on their way to a feeder that was scattering corn on the ground. They were feral pigs and for me meat hogs only. I had no desire to slosh around in the swamps to stalk them. On my wall, however, hangs a trophy boar that I killed with a single shot to the head from my .270. My shot was between the boar’s eyes at a range of about five yards. If I would have missed I’m sure he would have gleefully ripped my legs to shreds because I’d been stalking him for hours and my rifle was an H&R single shot.

What I am asking is whether we need to seriously begin to rethink our claims of fair chase. Where is the dividing line between the fair chase of a tree stand and an elevated permanent box stand? Does fair chase demand that all of my hunts be still or stalks on the ground? Is a feeder outside the boundary of fair chase and if that is true what about some of the attractants that are becoming popular?

I, for one, believe there ARE answers to these questions, but the answers, as with all philosophical questions, come in the form of answers. We cannot ask a question of ourselves or our actions until we’ve asked questions about the actions and events that precede that question. If there are, as I believe, answers to the questions that trouble fair chase and hunting’s future then we must be willing to delve into ourselves and what is motivating us both as individuals and as an industry and ask much deeper questions than perhaps we’ve been willing to do.

In an email to Dr. Eaton I suggested that I would like to see a group of thinkers in the world of hunting meet someplace to engage in the activity of “thinking” about the questions of today’s hunting and hunters. This would be a time to ask questions about these issues and go much deeper into understanding them than we have ever before plunged. I had planned to bring the project up to some of the manufacturers I would be seeing at the SHOT Show later this month. Unfortunately I will not be attending the SHOT Show. Some health issues have conspired to keep me away from the show. To accomplish at least a little of my original plan I do plan to send the new issue of The Pines Review to the show with a friend who has agreed to give out copies of the review on CD. In my editorial for this issue I challenge the industry leadership to have the courage to help fund and organize a symposium of outdoor thinkers. I believe its time has come. It wouldn’t hurt for people to begin thinking about who should be invited and what form such a symposium should actually take.

What do you think? glg

Thinking about Thinkers Who Think About Hunting

2010-01-03T20:49:00.003-06:00

Would you believe that we are already well into the evening of the second day of the New Year and New Year's Day is quickly fading into the dustbin? This is terrible! Time is already flying by way too fast for me so I am demanding that time slow down just a bit and give me the opportunity to sit back and enjoy the passing days.
I think that is what I have always enjoyed about the outdoors, whether hunting or fishing. Time seems to slow just a bit and give me the opportunity to breathe in the world around me. That slow down also allows me to take stock of myself and what I am truly trying to accomplish.
These thoughts have been popping into my head quite a bit over the past couple of weeks and I think they are, in part, inspired by reading the work of Dr. Randall Eaton. It is still too early for me to actually comment on Eaton’s work, other than to say that I am starting to believe he is the most important thinker about hunting who is alive today. Or maybe that is too grand a statement to make. There are other people who come to mind as being great thinkers about hunting, Jim Posweitz, founder of the Orion Institute is heading the list of living thinkers.
A problem with both Eaton and Posweitz is they are headlining a list that is too short for the enormity of the problems being thought about. I’m not referring to the common problem of the antis vs. the rest of the community, or even the problem of slob hunters vs. good hunters, but I am referring to the cases (for example) of wildlife management vs. real nature or the unrelenting march of suburbia colliding with nature. Or, in a very frightening way, the abandonment of nature as part of the education curriculum of young people in metropolitan schools in favor of today’s unrealistic “feel good but not fuzzy—everyone gets a trophy” thinking. These issues are not as far from the core issue of “to hunt or not to hunt” as their proponents would lead society to believe. Hunting is core to the value system of making a choice. In recorded history not all men have been hunters but in every great civilization the choice of whether to hunt or not to hunt has been pivotal to that civilization’s social construction. Consider the Greeks and spend a little time with those thinkers who gave us the foundations of western philosophy. Not all of them were hunters but hunting was part of their world and they recognized its varied social roles. Perhaps the role of hunting is the spiritual connection between the human and nature that Dr. Eaton writes about. Regardless of whether hunting’s core relationship is spiritual, physical, or emotional, or an elixir concocted of all three we need to spend more time thinking about hunting and where our relationship to hunting places us within the context of contemporary civilization and the civilization of 2099. Yes, that is not a typo—I mean 2099! Our forefathers made the mistake of believing that once certain truths about hunting were established, those primarily being centered on notions of sportsmanship, hunter’s ethics, protection of wildlife and setting aside lands for the future, then hunting would take care of itself. Had our forefathers placed hunting alongside their desires to preserve wilderness and wildlife, keeping hunting—as a choice to participate in nature, to the degree of being a hunter, or not to participate, or some level in between—firmly entrenched in our national curriculum hunting might not be facing the crisis it is today. So, no matter how much of a spiritual connection can be built between the hunter and the quarry, regardless of how much time is spent discussing ethics, the simple truth is that hunting is no longer part of the core of our national being. This damage cannot be undone by a single Eaton, Posweitz, or the half-dozen other thinkers that exist among our ranks. We need to cultivate more thinkers; men and women who will provide the community of hunters (and anglers) with better answers to questions about the why of the hunt. But, equally important, these thinkers will provide the foundational thinking that generate more questions about the actions of politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the teachers they influence. Questions are what thinkers generate and ours is a time when we need many more questions because the answers we’re being thrown today are too often like scraps of offal laced with ground glass.
Just a thought or two.

Christmas thoughts,the turkey march and great dogs and cats

2009-12-28T01:26:00.005-06:00

Christmas 2009 is now in the history books. This year’s Christmas was one where Michelle and I kicked back and did very, very little. It was fine. We exchanged a few simple gifts between us and my in-laws and after that we relaxed and let the snow fall. That part has been kind of interesting because in the space of only a couple of days we’ve had well up to two feet of snow. We also had to deal with the sustained winds over 20 mph (closer to 30 I guess) which makes this storm the Blizzard of Christmas 09. Or, as the Grand Forks Herald calls this storm in the Sunday Morning edition—Blizzard Alvin, named after the coincidental release of the new Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. Okay, I can buy that.

One thing about this storm is that it has put the lid on my hunting season. I think Cookie is equally convinced hunting season is now over. This evening, after a very short stint outside, she decided the best place to be was in front of my woodstove. With more than two feet of snow on the ground pheasant hunting would be a huge challenge for both of us and the birds certainly don’t need the pressure. (The picture is of Cookie soaking up the heat of the wood stove.)

The snowstorm has brought some guests to town—a flock of wild turkeys! This area has never been known for a huntable population of wild turkeys and when Michelle and I first moved here in the fall of 2000 we contacted the state DOW about stocking wild turkeys on her family’s farm, only to be told the birds couldn’t survive. Guess what? They were wrong and Michelle’s intuition about the birds was right. Nowadays it is not at all uncommon for us to see wild turkeys in the region. I think the birds are adapting quite well to North Dakota and just to prove it, when the weather gets tough, the birds come to town. They’ve been feasting on the crabapples in my in-laws’ yard as well in other yards. Yesterday morning Michelle and I were treated to the Wild Turkey March (sort of like the Elephant Walk) as the birds, in single file, walked down the street in front of our house, turned west at the corner and walked down that street and headed for the grain elevators where they could feed on the spilled grain. Unfortunately I keep my camera in my office, which is 50 feet from the house so I didn’t get a picture but I’ll carry it into the house with me for a few days and try to get a photo.

Something this Christmas that got me to thinking was a little gift that Michelle gave her mother. It is a framed card and on it is written a nice expression about favorite dogs in heaven. I’ve always wondered if, when I die, I will have the pleasure of being rejoined with the great dogs of my life. You know, the dogs that were part of our life from the time they were a puppy until they left us, sometimes old, sometimes before they became old--always too soon. I’ve often thought about Toby, my first dog. She was really the family dog and everyone claimed her but she’s still imprinted on my memory as “my” dog. There came a succession of other dogs but none of them made an imprint until after Vietnam, when my first wife and I were living in San Diego. We had a string of dogs, ending with one called Rocky. Of these dogs only Scruffy seemed to have really imprinted himself on that dog part of my being. We gave him to a farmer because he was too big for military housing.

I didn’t have another dog until I acquired Grettel, my Springer spaniel. Her full name was Crestone Grettel, named after the peaks that towered over the kennel where she was born. The first and last photographs of Grettel adorn my office bookshelf and every time I look up I see Grettel as a puppy with pushed up nose and no flecking on her legs and she's looking at me from behind a tree. Right above that picture is one of me holding a shotgun and reaching down to pet her. We’re standing in the swampy waters of a wetland near Florence, Colorado where we had been hunting my favorite shorebird—Wilson Snipe. She is now buried under the evergreen tree at a friend’s house. She died in my arms after being hit by an inattentive, speeding driver. My next dog, also a Springer, was Jenny, her registered name was Lord Nelson’s Jennifer-Diane. She died here in North Dakota and her ashes are on another book shelf. I’ve never had the heart to part with them although I’ve always said I would bury her ashes next to Grettel. Michelle says she’ll mix Jenny’s ashes, and the ashes of any of my other dogs, or cats, with mine and either scatter them together or have them buried together.

I remember when I buried Grettel; a half-dozen friends went with me to Al’s house and stood around while I buried her, my hunting coat lining her grave, with an unfired 12-gauge shell in a coat pocket. When she slept in my makeshift office while I worked she used my hunting coat for a bed. It was only right that she sleep on it for eternity. My friends were there as much for themselves as to provide comfort to me. First thing every morning, when I opened the door, Grettel made the rounds to visit her friends. Whenever we came home from hunting or fishing she made her rounds again, as if to check that everything was okay in the world. I always worried she’d get hit by a car near our home. I lost her the morning of July 7, 1987, when I took her to the park for a morning walk.

I buried two other pets under that same tree. They were both pets that had been part of our family. There was Hans, a mutt dog that had belonged to Gail, my second wife, before we even met and he become a major fixture in our home and after I brought Grettel home he became her best friend. He died in October, 1990. There was also Lucas the Cat. I adopted him before Gail and I were married. Hans didn’t mind Lucas sharing our bed and when I acquired Grettel neither she nor Hans seemed to mind sharing bed space with Lucas, although the bed sometimes got a little crowded with Gail, me, two dogs and the cat.

Lucas was the last of the three to die, in August, 1995.

Hans, I’ve always believed, was poisoned by a mean-spirited old man who lived behind us. I truly detested the old bastard and one day, when he was across the fence between our yards and cussing Gail’s new dog’s barking (Sarah didn’t bark) he said, “I got rid of one dog, I can rid of another.” I decked him. It didn’t matter that he was probably in his late 60’s or early 70’s. Even if he hadn’t poisoned Hans he evidently killed someone’s dog and deserved a fist in the face. A few months later he died of a heart attack and when another neighbor asked me if I wanted to contribute to flowers for the family I declined, then added that he was a pet killer and the world was a better place without him.

Lucas the Cat was the only one of the three that lived a full life. The end of a great relationship came when was just over 17 years old and he suffering from feline diabetes. Lucas was urinating almost pure blood and his weight had dropped so much that he was no more than bones encased in fur. When I took him to the vet to be put to sleep they had trouble finding a vein but a minute or so after they did his eyes, which had been mostly closed for days, opened wide and he looked at me. Not with terror, fear or anything terrible, but the same look of love that he had held in those eyes for the fifteen years he was part of my life. Then he closed his eyes and I watched him sigh and stop breathing. I took him out to my friend’s house and asked for permission to bury Lucas beside his friends. Al told me I could and offered to help. I told him I wanted to do it alone, feeling that I was burying something else as well. When I was finished, I put a rose on the marker Al had made for Grettel, another one on Hans’ grave and one on the fresh dirt that covered Lucas. I know my eyes were so full of tears that the hardest thing for me to do was see anything clearly but I swear that through the misty haze of my eyes I saw Lucas walk up to Grettel, rub her chin and then go between Hans and Grettel where he sat for a second, as if waiting, and then the dogs turned and trotted away, with Lucas running between them. All three now reunited. Once, they looked back at me then disappeared into the mist of my eyes.

That card about our pets waiting for us in heaven. Well, I think it has to be true—don’t you?

Computer Stores and Hunters

2009-12-10T19:52:00.002-06:00

The past two days have been nothing short of down and dirty awful. Here’s why. As most of you know my other laptop was destroyed by water dripping through the roof. I had to replace it. This time I vowed not to buy my computer from one of the big box stores for several reasons and those being: First, I did not want all of that pre-loaded crap that computer manufacturers feel compelled to put on new machines. Second, I was sick of the quasi-service you get. My experience has been that even the Best Buy “Geek Squad” is going to charge you at least half of a C-note to tell you they can’t fix it and the computer needs to go to the manufacturer for repair. Or, if they can fix it (after the first poke at your checkbook) it is going to take days, no matter how simple the job. So, I went to a local store front retailer, “Computer World” in Fargo to be specific. I bought a Sony Vaio and one of the store owners promised me that because I bought the computer from his store they would take care of me. Okay, good sales pitch. So, here I am six weeks later. I’m doing some work with African Expedition Magazine and trying to finish putting together my own little literary journal for outdoor writers. (The Pines Review, anyone who wants to get it, I send it out as a pdf attachment to email, need only let me know.) Suddenly my screen went bonkers. My computer was doing something weird with all of my files. I tried everything I could think of but nothing worked although I did finally get it to shut down. Next day, I’m off to Fargo. Two hours later the report is, “I don’t know how you did that, but I’ve fixed it, just don’t ever do that again.”

He might as well tell the bear what not to do in the woods.

Yesterday, I was back to work on African Expedition Magazine and the computer did the same thing. Today I was back in the store and this time we worked together on the problem and finally isolated it as being connected to Windows 7™ and the program I was trying to use that is online is not compatible with Windows 7. The main thing for me was that they were able to put everything back like I had it. Total time the crew at Fargo’s Computer World had invested in me now stood at about five hours. When I asked the person who had sold me the computer what the bill was he said, “I told you, you buy a computer from me, I’ll take care of you.”

Warranties and all other considerations aside, I felt pretty good because they had stood behind the computer. It would have been far easier for them to tell me that it was all my fault. Instead, they looked for an answer. I’m telling you this as a warm and fuzzy. There are still good people in this world. And, oh, coincidently—they are hunters and we’ve had some good conversations about hunting. Interesting, isn’t it, that so many of the people who keep their word are hunters and so many who don’t keep it think we’re barbarians?

As for Microsoft--once again there is a compatibility curve--fix the problem.

Now, with all that out of the way, the snow is perfect, December is cold and Cookie is chomping to get out of here. This weekend we’re going bird hunting. Besides, it’s too cold to work on the roof.
glg

PS I've got a couple of book reviews in this issue of African Expedition Magazine so check them out if you get the chance. Go to http://www.africanxmag.com. There are some great stories in this issue, including another report on the Zim Border Walk adventure.

A hunter's treat

2009-12-03T00:27:00.001-06:00

Winter has finally reached us and unlike the snows in October I have the gut feeling this weather is here until spring. Oh well, I suppose the mild weather was just too good to last.
While I was deer hunting this fall something happened I am still chuckling about it. To get to an area where I like to watch a line of trees between two fields of corn I had to drive over a prairie road and past several sloughs. Our weather has been just cold enough to partially freeze the water but most of the sloughs were still open (which accounts for the geese and a few ducks that were hanging around). As I passed one slough I noticed a beaver on the ice and another swimming around. I stopped and while I watched the one beaver slid from the ice into the water. I thought it would dive and disappear but the second beaver climbed onto the ice and after a few seconds slid into the water. The two beaver swam around then one of them would climb onto the ice, which was fun to watch in itself, then after walking around on the ice slide into the water. The beaver were playing! In all of my years of watching beaver I’ve seen them work industrially at repairing their dams or their lodges but I have never seen them play. I cussed myself for not having a long enough telephoto lens because the photos would have been great. After watching the beaver for a full ten minutes I decided to get on to my deer hide. But, I’d had my treat for the day. How many of us have ever had the opportunity to watch beaver play on the ice? It’s just another example of something we, as hunters, get to enjoy—nature being nature. Others might claim they get to share in that truth but I’ve got news for them—hunters are more a part of nature as participants than any “observer” will ever be.
Great to be us—isn’t it? Glg

Are We Alone When We Hunt? (Also, Cookie is doggie crying)

2009-11-22T01:15:00.005-06:00

Poor Cookie, she wants to go hunting in the worst way. Today she watched me carry my CVA muzzle loader to my Suburban and when she realized she wasn’t going to go she started to do the doggie cry. I’d love to take her grouse or pheasant hunting. The weather is perfect and I’ve seen a number of birds, but deer season is not the season to take a bird dog into the field—even with a blaze orange vest on the dog. Maybe I am over protective but Cookie is a much too important part of my life to risk endangering. We’ll still have ample time to hunt when deer season is closed.

As for my deer hunting—the warm weather and fields are still conspiring, although there were a few more harvested fields this afternoon. I watched some does but my license is for a buck.

The lack of opportunity of the past two weeks, coupled with the looming end of the rifle season, may be triggering (no pun) a little “end-of-day” anxiety among some hunters. I’d put my spotting scope (Alpen) away and pulled the bullet and powder from my rifle when I heard a shot from a treeline that was quite a distance from me. (Pulling is easier than cleaning my rifle if I "shot" it empty.) I didn’t think too much about it because, if my guess was right, the hunter was probably looking over a field where the sun was setting behind him and he had a good view, with lots of lingering autumn sunglow to see by. It was the other four shots that followed, all from other directions, that troubled me.

The truth is that modern optics are vastly superior to those of even a decade ago and the light transmitting capability of the modern lens is remarkable—but with these advances in equipment is it possible we’ve created a new set of problems for ourselves—hunters taking risks? I’m sure that each of us, no matter how ethical we try to be, at some point in our hunting career, stretched a barrel just a bit and sat for a few minutes longer than we should have. The hunter who is guided by hunting’s ethos will feel some kind of guilt. That’s human nature. But what happens when technology is itself a “wink” at both the law and the ethic? Hunting, above all other human activities, is the one where rarely is a person’s ethical behavior witnessed by another person. We are each alone with ourselves when hunting.

Or are we truly alone with ourselves?

The more I research the advertising, press releases and texts of our own media the closer I am moved to believing that the goal of some promotional media is to have greater influence over the hunter’s actions than the ethos of hunting. In short, are some attempting to redefine the ethos? How often is the image of a successful hunter becoming less part of the greater experience of the hunt and more the “reason” for hunting? (I deliberately chose “reason” over “justification” in the sentence.)

Hunting is, and must remain, an individual activity. Regardless of whether a hunter is in a pheasant line or tree stand overlooking a pasture the hunter remains alone. To shoot or not to shoot is the individual’s choice. The wonder of modern optics must not be based upon a misinterpretation of Ortega’s often quoted, “kill to have hunted” but be guided by Hemingway’s “duty of the hunter” to make a one shot kill.

Think about it. What do you think? glg

Starling Pie, Anyone?

2009-11-19T00:29:00.001-06:00

Whenever I write a book review I make it a point to fact check dates, names and other information to be sure my readers can trust my review. Sometimes that fact checking leads to something interesting that I hadn't expected. Here is a recipe I found when checking on the dates a professional hunter claimed to have taken a well known writer on safari. The recipe does not have anything to do with the book I reviewed but it is, well, interesting. Enjoy!

I found this in the April 23, 1956 issue of Sports Illustrated and is from the "SI Vault." This was written by the then Dallas Morning News outdoor writer Ken Foree.

STARLINGS STOUT
That sedentary and eccentric genius of American detective fiction, Nero Wolfe, insists each spring on a starling dinner. To Wolfe, an unabashed and practiced gourmet, the little birds are an unsurpassable dish. Spring is here, there is no bag limit on starlings and, with this in mind, SI queried Mr. Wolfe for an appropriate recipe. Unfortunately he was closeted with his orchids and hence incommunicado. Rex Stout, however, who is Boswell to Archie Goodwin just as Archie is to Wolfe, is a starling man himself and gladly provided the following information for SI sportsmen: starling dinners are best enjoyed in April. Mr. Stout allows four birds to a guest and may shoot a few more than necessary as insurance against stringy oldsters or those hopelessly impregnated with shot. He feathers the birds and marinates them in red wine for 12 hours before broiling. Young, tender starlings may be ready after 25 minutes at moderate heat, but 40 minutes is average. Stout uses many sauces, but prefers an herby béarnaise laced with tarragon, fresh only (dried tarragon is too strong). He adds the tiniest dash of allspice and half a sage leaf to the basic sauce. "Flavor to taste," advises the famous author, "and deliberate a bit over whether or not half a bay leaf will add just about the right touch." To qualified female readers the genial Mr. Stout, though no Wolfe, offers a Goodwinesque suggestion: if they are between the ages of 22 and 26 and will submit a photograph for study, he will gladly consider cooking a platter of starlings for them.

I wonder if they were really writing about blackbirds? I'm sure the farmers around here would welcome a blackbird season every time they watch a cloud of the birds descend on their fields, especially the sunflowers.

glg

Empty Deer Tag Blues

2009-11-18T23:52:00.001-06:00

I'm still working on filling my deer tag and with some help from the weather I should have a good chance this weekend, which is also closing weekend.

I don't know about other parts of the state but around here I've seen more disappointed hunters than successful ones and the reason is mostly corn. The farmers got a late start last spring and the corn crop has been slow to dry enough for harvesting, so the deer herds have been able to staying in the corn and venture out at night (if they come out at all). This weekend the weather could change that pattern. Our forecast calls for some rain, possibly snow, over the weekend which will push the farmers to cut more off the fields, moving the deer around and with bad weather the deer may venture out before sunset. We'll see.

glg

Deer Season Opens

2009-11-06T01:29:00.001-06:00

North Dakota's gun deer season opens at noon tomorrow and I'm actually ready for it! Okay, sort of ready for it. I do have my hunting belt pack ready and my Suburban has a full tank of gas and my gun is zeroed and ready. I haven't dug out my vest and I need to make sure my powder and bullets are packed in my possible bag, but otherwise, I'm ready to go.

Just as I did last year I'll be hunting with my trusty muzzle loader and like last year I'll be hunting within a few miles of home. It is nice to be able to deer hunt so close to home after years of hunting in odd corners of the state. The strange thing is that the deer hunting around home was probably just as good as it was across the state but for a variety of reasons we sat up hunting camp a couple of hundred miles away. When I did hunt near home I usually managed to kill my deer after about the same amount of time hunting but the lure of other places to hunt seemed a lot stronger than common sense. I don't know if common sense has finally gotten a grip on me (I doubt it!) but I know there are more sunsets behind me than sunrises ahead—besides, I'm somewhat lazy.

I am looking forward to deer season this year. The weather isn't too cold and with a warm sun shining on my little hidey-hole among some rocks and tall weeds I'll be able to catch a few winks of sleep in between waking up to look around and see if a buck has decided to offer me a shot. If not, I'll go back to sleep until the shadows start getting long and then I'll do a little serious hunting before packing it in for the day.

Here's wishing all of you who are going deer hunting safe and successful hunts.

glg

A Fried Computer, Anxious Dog and “The Pines Review”

2009-11-01T23:03:00.002-06:00

Wow! This has been an unbelievable 72 hours. On Thursday we had a pretty serious rain and the accompanying wind blew aside some of the plastic sheeting I had protecting the exposed parts of the roof. The upshot of the evening weather was that when we returned from nearby Mayville I could see where the plastic had been blown aside and I hurried to change clothes and get on the roof to repair the plastic. Once that was done I went in my office only to discover that water had been leaking through the ceiling and onto my desk and my laptop. After trying to clean everything up I had to resign myself to the possibility that my laptop was fried.

On Friday morning I contacted my insurance agency and the agent thinks I might be covered, but in the meantime I had to scramble around to make sure I had the money to get a new computer. I checked the prices and finally opted to change my computer buying practices and purchase a new laptop from a small computer store that isn't part of a chain, primarily because they would transfer my data from the old computer to the new one. I was also able to get the new "Windows 7" operating system rather than having to pay extra for it in a chain or resigning myself to "Vista," which I really didn't want. Once problem was that I also had to buy Microsoft's "Office 2007" because my old office program disks have been lost. Again, I got a better deal on the software.

The upshot of the whole mess is that I am back online with a new computer and new software but I've had to spend the entire weekend uploading both the new and old software and try to train myself to use both the computer and software. It wouldn't be so bad if deer season wasn't less than a week away, pheasant season is open and there are still geese and ducks on many of the sloughs.

When I was in Korea (Second Infantry Division, Public Affairs Office, "Indianhead" newspaper), during my three years in the army between my years in the Marine Corps, I had a public affairs officer, Major Diehl, who used to call me Crisis Geer. Every day he'd stop by my desk ask me if I had a new crisis for the day. It's nice to have that warm fuzzy that things haven't changed!

I've been reading the work of Dr. Randall Eaton in preparation for writing a feature about Dr. Eaton for my small literary magazine The Pines Review. I am fascinated by what Dr. Eaton has to say about hunting and the human spirit. I don't want to give away my article before the journal is published but since I do send it for free as a PDF file that is attached to an email if any reader would like to be put on the mailing list just send me an email at ggeerauthor@yahoo.com and I'll be put you on the list. The journal is also available as a Print On Demand publication but that costs and the details will be on the website when it returns to the internet.

What I am "trying" to do is publish a small literary journal of and for the men and women of the outdoor media. It's a big project and it has worked in spurts and stops but I believe it is all back on track. If you care about the art and literature of the angling and hunting sports I truly believe you will enjoy The Pines Review. As the commercial said, "try it, you'll like it."

Tomorrow evening I am going grouse hunting, roof or no roof, new computer or not. The birds are calling, well, at least Cookie is, she pulled down my hunting vest and has been carrying it around. glg

A One Hour Hunt

2009-10-25T21:34:00.001-05:00

I finally managed to get away with Cookie and go duck hunting. That is what living in North Dakota can do for you; Cookie and I were in the Suburban, out of town and at our first slough in just under three minutes. (I timed it.) With my binoculars I looked over the slough and sure enough there were several mallards on the slough.
Now, hunting ducks that are sitting on a slough is not like other pond jumping hunts, and that’s because you really can’t get as close as you’d like—too much mud! If you’ve got several hunters you designate one or two to be the jumpers and the others will space themselves around the slough so at lest someone gets a shot. Notions of taking off into the wind and all that other nice stuff will quickly evaporate when the ducks are jumped. Usually it is just Cookie and me on the hunt so it is up to her to send the ducks to me.
I scooted into a depression where I was fairly hidden and then I turned Cookie loose, ordering her to “spook the ducks.” Okay, it’s not a sophisticated command but it seems to separate the notion of finding a cripple or lost duck from what I want her to do. She darted to the slough, then turned and ran around the slough without going into the water, a maneuver that she seems to recognize as one that sends the ducks into the open. I am not sure what prompts her to turn from running along the edge of the water to plunging in but suddenly she’ll turn and splash into the water after the ducks. As soon as they take to the air she turns, as though she is herding the flying birds and most of the time the birds turn and fly near me, giving me a shot. Not that I always hit something and the other day I managed to miss with both barrels. To punish me Cookie came out of the water, walked up to me and shook, spraying stinky, slimy, muddy water over me. I earned it; both shots were doable and I muffed them.
The next slough was across a field and when I looked at the muddy field I decided to let Cookie try and flush the birds without me nearby and she did, but the birds were too high by the time they came over my hiding spot.
Just for grins I decided to walk a nearby grassy field where I flush the occasional grouse. We were approaching the end of the hunting light and I was following Cookie when I looked up and she was running across the ridge of the rise in the ground, silhouetted by the setting sun. In those few seconds she was a perfect picture of nature, surrounded by hundreds of shades of gold. There was sky, and the water of the slough, the bare fingers of a tree on she slough’s shore and the grass of the gentle ground and moving across it all was my dog—Cookie—and everything was bathed in the dust freckled golden Alpenglow . Those seconds were what I had left my office to find. Perhaps a mallard hanging from my belt would have somehow reshaped the image in my mind—perhaps not. I was satisfied. I loaded Cookie in the back of the Suburban and drove home—satisfied with the short hunt.

Ouch!

2009-10-21T00:03:00.001-05:00

Just about the time I thought I would have something good to write about bird hunting, I don’t. I woke up this morning and I was prepared to hit the sloughs and then the pain hit me, in my shooting shoulder. Man! It hurt! Like the preverbal dumb ass, yesterday I tried to climb a ladder carrying a bundle of shingles for my office/garage roof. It is bad enough that I’ve got to put these shingles on (You should see me, I scoot around on my butt because my sense of balance is so bad I keep losing my balance and try to fall over!), trying to get them up there is an exercise in stupid! When the second round of pain pills finally took hold I drove to the lumber yard and asked if they would bring a fork lift for me—when the weather clears.
The weather was my whole point in going today. It was dreary, foggy and wet, the kind of weather when I really like to sneak up on the sloughs. I’ll give Cookie a signal and she will gladly bound into the water and flush the ducks so I can get off a couple of shots. If I knock one down she seems to know where it lands and quickly returns with it. We have great fun but it only works on these gray days with scudding clouds, wet grass and muddy roads. I don’t know if the ducks feel that only an idiot (like me) would dare go out or they are just hunkered down against the weather but we can usually creep up to the very edge of the slough. But today was out. I guess sometimes I just have trouble reconciling my health issues with reality. Sort of sucks, you know. I’m going to try again in the morning, which means it is now midnight North Dakota time, the dogs are smart enough to be in bed and that’s where I’m going. This time I’ll drag my carcass out of bed and go hunting when the alarm goes off. I know Cookie is starting to wonder if I’ve turned into a pansy over the weather.
Best, glg

Mud, Snow, Mud and Fog

2009-10-15T22:46:00.002-05:00

Today was a perfect day to go duck hunting except for the mud. I was going to go but I talked with another hunter who said the roads were too mucky for trying to get to any of the better sloughs so I put that idea on the shelf. I've go to make a trip to Fargo tomorrow and if I get home in time I am going to give it a shot in the evening. The desire to get out and hunt is building and building and Cookie is driving me crazy with her antics. She wants to get out of the kennel and into the fields.
I'll let you know how the day goes.
glg

Thoughts on Early Snow Storm

2009-10-15T00:59:00.000-05:00

Throughout the day I’ve been jotting down notes about this snow storm. I know many of you are way ahead of me on receiving the first snow of the year but today’s storm has my full attention! I am not happy about the storm for several reasons and at the top of the list is that I’ve still got several chores to complete before I can write off my office project as “completed.” Also, as a hunter, I am concerned that if this snow does not melt away in the next few days the opening of pheasant season will be interesting. Not that the opening will be delayed, but the early snow will make the birds hold longer, giving hunters and their dogs an advantage they don’t normally have in the opening days.

This advantage is troublesome. On one hand it is great for hunters because it is easier to get a limit of birds, but the easier limits have a price—lots of birds killed early in the season. The ideal, then, is for nature to provide a counter-weight by dumping more snow later in the season to be a counter weight to the earlier easy hunting. The later snows often provide late season birds an escape by preventing all but the most dedicated hunters from penetrating the bird’s hiding places in thick cover.

Unfortunately, the problem of weight-counter-weight is that it has other consequences, if the temperature drops too low, as it did last winter, the birds struggle to survive the cold. I believe there is something that hunters can do to have a positive influence on game bird populations when it is a little too easy to get a limit—practice self restraint.

Suppose a hunter is able to easily shoot a limit of birds on day one of the hunt. On the next day, if the birds continue to hold close and the shots are still fairly easy, reduce the number of birds killed by one bird. If the limit is three roosters a day with two or three days limit a possession limit, then reducing the second and third day’s kill will keep two birds in the population and increase the population’s chances of surviving late season severe weather. I know some people will argue that if one hunter doesn’t take the birds then another hunter will. That’s not true. Certainly, another hunter may ignore the restraint idea and kill a full nine birds over the three days but the two birds the other hunter didn’t kill are still in the population and the number is up by two.

After witnessing last winter’s devastating kill of game birds with the prolonged cold weather I have come to the belief that hunters can take the imitative to protect the game bird populations by insuring that hunting remains just that—hunting. When it is too easy the “hunting” difficulty index begins to drop and we should practice self-restraint. I’d rather have a great hunt and kill one or two birds that I am proud of than a hunt where the birds were too easy and I feel somewhat uncomfortable.

What do you think?
Best,
Glg

A QUESTION
While I was at the SEOPA Conference several people asked me why I don’t have any advertising on my Blog. I didn’t have a good answer. Many suggested that while letting Google put up advertising wouldn’t help the content of my blog they didn’t think it would hurt because the advertisers have no control over the content of the blog, beyond the rules imposed by the site’s owners. So, my question to you, my readers, is whether you think I should allow advertising? I’d really like to hear your opinion. I haven’t made up my mind and don’t propose to do so too quickly. Let me know your thoughts. glg