text:
Hunting deer on a mountain bike
In the tangle of gear in my daypack, the phone started ringing. It was a wholly inappropriate moment: My phone is pink, and its jaunty notes clashed with the traditional hunter's world of blaze orange and camouflage. I sat on a rock by the trail and cringed. Everything about this -- my first hunting trip -- would prove to be post-modern.
My friend Andrew had been bugging me to hunt with him, and I'd put him off. Now, on the final afternoon of deer season, I realized that my bike trailer and I were integral to his dream of a carbon-neutral hunt.
We pedaled through town, he with our sole rifle across his back, me towing the trailer.
"I've always wanted to do this," Andrew said. "To leave from my house, go hunting and carry the deer back home. Without a car -- to get a deer without spending any fossil fuel."
With its locavore impulses and proximity to wild places, Missoula, Mont., is the perfect place to chase this dream. The Rattlesnake National Recreation Area is less than five miles from downtown. Deer and elk overflow into the adjacent residential valleys, and hunting is allowed in order to control herd numbers.
Andrew and I hadn't known each other for very long. We had teamed up on a project at work, and we sometimes met to discuss it on the stationary bikes at the gym. That gave way to mountain biking as the weather improved, and that in turn led to this experiment in bike hunting.
Three miles past the trailhead, we stopped and loaded the rifle. Now, we pedaled on tiptoe. I almost rear-ended Andrew when he stopped short and stepped off his bike. A good-sized doe had just crossed the meadow ahead of us.
I sat on the rock and watched as the white plastic of his bike helmet appeared and disappeared in the tangle of trees.
I agreed to this first hunt because I've always spent a fair amount of time in the woods, usually running or biking as a restorative escape. Hunting, it seemed to me, might be a more practical way to spend that time. I also like the idea of employing the kind of skills and the self-reliant ethic that help connect me to a fading but not forgotten generation -- our great "grands" who hunted their way into the 20th century and a rapidly changing world.
I've been interested lately in my father's grandmother, who grew up in a geographic swirl that encompassed much of the Western United States. A typesetter and reporter, she and her editor husband joined the rush to the Klondike in 1897, working at newspapers, following the gold. As he lobbied drinkers toward moderation, urging them to "put a squirt of lemon in it," she earned a reputation as an outdoorswoman. Her obit said she climbed every worthwhile peak in southeastern Alaska. According to family lore, she kept ptarmigan on the table using the old .22 that hangs above the bar at my parents' house.
From my perch on the rock, I felt her beside me, long skirts held silent, a historic reminder that a steady shot might be as handy a survival skill for journalists now as it was back then.
The single shot from Andrew's rifle was incredibly loud. In an instant, it fused the silliness of biking with a gun with the seriousness of killing an animal. I leaped to my feet. He gave me a thumbs-up from the meadow. His eyes were huge, and we gave the deer and the moment time to settle.
Twilight bled into darkness as we knelt in the grass beside the doe. I touched her warm hide. The light of my headlamp caught her eye and I saw her lingering life force slowly fade.
"Can you read the third paragraph?" Andrew asked, handing me some folded office paper. My headlamp picked up the words, instructions off the Internet for field dressing a deer.
This wasn't Andrew's first deer, although it wasn't old hat to him, either. But it was my first deer, and I had no idea what the next step was. Neither of us grew up hunting, but we share the conviction that if you eat meat you ought to at least acknowledge where it comes from. Local meat is infinitely preferable to feedlot imports.
As I read -- something about pinching the skin at the abdomen, inserting the tip of the knife, be careful not to puncture the entrails -- I was grateful that Andrew had let me in on his uncertainty. It allowed me to share the process in all my naïveté, not despite it. Together, we picked our way through the inner workings of the deer, slowly separating the motor from the muscles it had moved.
The evening grew cool. I held the slippery esophagus in my fist while Andrew worked his knife at the opposite end. With some effort -- a twist, a tug and a tip -- the entrails spilled onto the ground as one clean, complete package.
By the light of our headlamps, the texture of the undigested grass in the doe's translucent stomach struck me like a solar wind: She was the machine that ate the grass the sun and earth had grown. She had built the meat that I would eat. Standing in the moonlit meadow, I felt an intense new respect for the process that turns sunshine into meat -- a future meal to fuel more dreams and rides and friendships.
Nadia White lives in Missoula, Montana, where she teaches at the journalism school from which her grandmother graduated.
All animals are sentient beings. They feel love, fear, pain, etc...they are not machines.
Whether you choose to eat meat or not, and to hunt animals for their meat, is your choice. But you should not rationalize the process of killing anything but pretending that it has no spirit. At least the Native Americans, who were hunter, acknowledged the spirit of the animals they killed for food, and usually cleansed themselves spiritually (ceremonies) after coming from a hunt, as they knew killing anything was a sort of transgression and a serious matter.
By the way, when you give a deer "time to settle," you are ensuring that the animal doesn't get up and run off when you approach it never to be found, wasted. The sunshine to meat comment clicked with me. I get it, I guess some people don't.
Anti-hunter people question: Would you rather have cougars and wolves in the woods or an orange clad hunter?
Ms. White,
Great job,I like the content as well as the delivery. I've always wanted to hunt from my bicycle. I'm glad you were able to engage in such an activity. Hunting is a wonderful way to get out and enjoy nature.
P.S. Don't worry about the people who are against hunting, their car obviously hasn't hit a deer yet.
Now don't forget, next time you go on a bicycle ride, don't forget to take your salt and pepper shakers and put them in your little basket, so that when you see a road kill, to make your life easier, just pull right on over, and eat it right off the road...no need to waste ammunitions.
Or is it the killing that you enjoy more than deer meat?...I mean, if you don't get to pull the trigger, killing a helpless animal, do you feel less powerful?
And what would happen if you did not have a gun or a powerful crossbow?...Would you hunt a bear with a knife, like the Indians did?
Hunting might be a way for your kind to enjoy nature, BUT LET ME ASSURE YOU NATURE DOES NOT ENJOY YOU!! I would like to see how tough any of you would be without your guns, your crossbows, without your weapons, facing a wild animal such as a grizzly bear. You are not tough, you are cowardly killers, and not worth the blood you spill.
Furthermore, you ignorant hunters always go after the biggest animals for your trophies and your egos, and by doing so you WEAKEN the species you hunt.
I hope I don't hit you while you are riding your little bicycle with the deer antlers on the handles, and people driving by think you are just another worthless animal killed on the road.
The futile attempt to justify killing innocent wildlife with phony claims of herds being too large is laughable, but it snookers plenty of people. Wildlife is managed NOT for the good of the species but for the good of recreational killers, who then can be viewed as public benefit saviors by the gullible. For more hype, Great Granny, gets tossed into the mix for the heritage angle. She probably knew how to forage—which, more than likely, these people do not have to do. The carbon-neutral smokescreen is a further attempt to boost approval for the killing, but how carbon neutral are the bikes, helmet, trailer, rifle (scopes lasers)?—hardly reminiscent of Granny's days. Finally, the absurdity of this piece comes full circle with the author's using a health claim to silence critics. Neither diseased wildlife infused with lead fragments nor antibiotic- and hormone-filled CAFO meat should be consumed by anyone who cares about their health. Too bad HCN is so gullible (or desperate).
I loved the bike with trailer angle and have thought long and hard about it. Many trails are bike or hike only and a bike would allow much more remote access.
Good luck next year.
There are a couple of studies showing that deer drives during hunting season may increase deer-driver collisions as the animals are driven into roadway areas. There aren't, sadly, enough studies confirming this. But if you've ever been in a high-pressure hunting area with multiple drives occurring on deer, it's not difficult to fathom how that stress would alter an animal's behavior in critical ways.
Furthermore, if population control were truly a motivation, then hunters as a group wouldn't have the antagonistic attitude they do toward apex predators. They would welcome the balance in ecosystems that tends to occur when apex predators exist in healthy numbers -- much more healthy and balanced than when humans self-assign as stewards. Just look at what's happening to wolves in Idaho and Montana. There are incredible positive changes in biodiversity as a result of their being re-introduced. But as we speak,they are being slaughtered by hunters, erroneously scapegoated for declines in elk populations. In at least one case in Idaho, it's been shown that human hunters, not wolves, have put excessive hunting pressure on the elk, contributing to these declines.
When elk numbers increase, these same people complain of how the elk are destroying the Aspen growths and then issue calls for more hunting. The upshot is, declines in game animal numbers are NOT what hunters are looking for. They use that argument to sway people who are not as informed on this issue, but in all cases, they are looking to increase their hunting opportunities. Read hunting boards, go to hunting advocacy group websites and see what falls under the auspices of "conservation" as hunters see it. It's rarely in synch with what the rest of us would view as compassionate stewardship.
And the answer to my own question: I personally would rather see cougars and wolves than orange clad hunters.
Robb, my venison steak dinner last night was excellent (~70lb of meat for $17.00 plus a bullet is a great value).
Hunting is a viable wildlife management tool and often the only one available in cases where populations are too large either because of a lack of predators or because the wildlife isn't native to the location and has become invasive.
And hunting is an essentially different way to engage with 'nature' that isn't replicable by other surrogates like viewing -- if you haven't done it, you won't understand what the difference is. Personally speaking, the actual killing is the least enjoyable part of the experience though it is an act of taking personal responsibility for the decision to eat meat so I don't take it lightly.
There are no doubt far too many irresponsible hunters just like there are too many irresponsible hikers, drivers, anglers, photographers, and every other activity you can think of. That doesn't mean that you should paint everyone who participates in an activity with the same broad brush. At least not if you want to retain an open, non-judgemental mind.
Although there are far too few studies on injury rates, there are game-department estimates which suggest one or two injured bird for every four shot and retrieved. And an injury/loss rate as high as 50 percent in archery. That means millions upon millions of migratory birds, doves, deer and other mammals die because of hunting injury.
So, you are most like (from your commentary) a very ethical hunter and take responsibility for your kills. But hunting sport as a whole takes very responsibility for this tremendous collateral damage to wildlife. For instance, do you and your hunting partners count injured animals toward your bag limit or tag? If so, I would say you are a rarity, even among the several respectable hunters I count among my friends. If you shoot waterfowl, my guess is that you don't even know how many birds you've injured because a whiffed shot often looks like it misses the bird, but trust me -- there are birds that end up in wildlife facilities who, when x-rayed, have plenty of shot in their breast.
I admit, I used to be much more respectful of hunting because I believed most hunters walked their talk. I've seen a different side now and it's almost impossible to reconcile the reality with the rhetoric.
If Linda believes I'm being vitriolic (I'm not sure which commenters she was referring to) I would guide her toward hunting message boards to see what vitriol really tastes like.
People can remove themselves from the realities of hunting and remain cerebral about it...but again, we are essentially discussing killing and butchering wild animals, and there is nothing noble about such activities. It is not a sport, it does not take much skills, and no one who engages in this is starving. In this day and age and in a nation like America, hunting is unnecessary and unjustifiable.
And it is because of hunters that wolf populations are being butchered in many western states. It is man's arrogance that causes him to dictate which animal has a right to live and which should be eliminated.
I have been on both sides of the hunting issue. I grew up in Wyoming. I live in Idaho. I am an omnivore, as I believe my species has evolved to be. I eat meat. Not a lot, but I eat it. Therefore, I'm concerned about all of it:domestic or wild. I am concerned about how it lived and how it died. There are abusers in all aspects of the food industry, from farming to ranching to hunting. I do not believe Nadia White is an abuser. I respect her approach to dealing with the dilema of taking a life to perpetuate life. I had the unpleasant experience of strolling through a Cabela's store in September. The outrageous consumerism that hovered about the hunting displays nauseated me. That is why I found Nadia's essay an interesting contrast. I do not appreciate smarmy, sarcastic verbal dueling. There is too much of that in our canned media and in Congress. We need to learn how to speak to each other with respect, to listen to what is being said, and to respond without personal attacks.
I stand by my opinion that Nadia's bike trek to bring home meat was more admirable than a conglomeration of 4 diesel mantrucks loaded with campers, ATV's, power saws, power stoves, fridges, microwaves,GPSs, and an endless supply of other creature comforts. Of course resources went into her bike, tires, trailer, etc. But how about a bit of perspective here?
Is there is a problem of overpopulation, it is with the human species, that is constantly encroaching on animal territories, not with any animals. Furthermore if we had not killed so many of the predators, there would be no need for "management". Civilization "manages" nature by destroying the balance of nature, the natural order, and then intervenes to try to "fix" the imbalance while creating more chaos. The hunters' flawed view of wildlife "management" is symptomatic of a deeper problem, which is a problem of civilization: being neurotically driven to attempt to control and rule nature and all life in all of their aspects.
She is talking about a sentient being, that is not different than a dog, a cat, a horse. Would she consider these machines?
There is nothing worse than the rationalization of killing, in any situation, and the detachment expressed in this article would shock any feeling person. But then again feeling and sensitive people are not the majority in this world.
The difficulty I had with this essay (as did a few others here) was with the issue of the writer veiling this killing in a poetic scrim. That, combined with the Cartesian notion of animal as machine. Those ideological twists in any piece are ripe for critique because they amount to a moral statement on the purpose of animal existence, and any such statement is open to critique, particularly if the revelation (animal as machine) is outdated based on our current understanding and consciousness. I realize that even historical hunting literature (a la Jose Ortega y Gasset) is infused with such romanticism. It strikes me as nothing more than the mind's rationalization for an act that under any circumstances is brutal and quite difficult to reconcile. Even if you believe in hunting.
To those of us who don't hunt, who understand the realities of the practice, it's a dishonest expression of what they have just incurred. Dishonest in the sense that there is no getting around the violence of slaying a living being. There is nothing beautiful about taking another's life, particularly for the prey. If you choose to view your own death in spiritual terms, that's fine. But to impose your own personal quest for connection and meaning upon the death of another is a significant sign of disrespect and disconnect. Given our increasing understanding for non-human cognizance, communication and social complexity, it may not be as far a stretch as some believe, to acknowledge the loss, pain and disruption we incur by such actions.
As such, the argument I'm making is that a deer fell, suffered for an unknown amount of time, hours most likely, and then died as the person who killed her, looked into her eyes and patted her warm hide. This was hardly a benevolent act from the standpoint of the deer, her predator kneeling by her side, watching her die. It is callous, and it's disingenuous to present the act as anything but what it was. I think other readers also respond to that disparity between reality and the author's perceptions.
1. Use your real first and last names, and tell us your e-mail address when you sign up to comment. (We will not share your e-mail address; but we will use it to contact you in case we wish to reprint your comment in our print-magazine edition.)
2. Relate your comment to the HCN content or what other commenters have written.
3. Comments may not contain personal attacks, racism, sexism, or hatred; may not use gratuitous profanity.
4. Comments may not contain HTML.
As you can see, some of those policies are open to subjective interpretation, particularly the one referencing "personal attacks" and "hatred."
I take comment deletion and censorship seriously, and, in this case judged these comments to be in poor taste, but not in clear violation of our comment policy. My general preference is to let commenters speak their piece, because commentary is most often a reflection on the individual than anything else. Raphael's comments about accidentally hitting Jarrod toed the line, but I also saw that they were having a back-and-forth, and let it play out a bit further.
When comments do violate our policy I do delete them and notify the commenter with a note about why. Since my policy is to explain why I deleted a comment, I feel I need to have a very good reason to do so.
In this case, I chose not to delete anything, because I did not see a clear violation of our policy (perhaps our policy should add a clause about civility; this is something I shall ponder.) But I am paying attention.
Stephanie Paige Ogburn, online editor
Oscar, I could not agree more with you. Thank you for keeping this exchange properly cerebral while making strong points...
However I would like to remind other that we are not discussing 19th century English literature or quantum physics here.
Perhaps we should...indeed Descartes was wrong in his definition of the universe as a clock...in his mechanistic views, as you pointed out Oscar, and as contemporary exploration in the realm of consciousness reveals (am I being properly cerebral here?...just checking)
But I would rather, again, simply focus on the fact that the real obscenity here, and the thing that I do not appreciate in any form whatsoever, is the killing of helpless yet beautiful animals without cause. The hunter may choose euphemisms, such as "taking", "harvesting", but the word "kill" is a four letter word any way you slice it, and it is in very poor taste indeed (if poor taste is to be defined here) to attempt
to portray such a brutal and unnecessary action in pseudo-mystical, pseudo-poetic terms that barely hide the dishonesty of the rationalization of hunting.
In war, the enemy is always dehumanized, perceived to be less than human. In this piece, the deer is reduced to be a machine, a process, essentially meat on four legs. The process of detachment from feeling and from reality, from the actual meaning of taking a life, is similar in both cases, and
equally repulsive. I would have more respect for actual honesty...such as: "yes, I really do hate killing such a beautiful animal, and gutting it makes me sick, I do feel guilty, but I am a meat eater and it is my choice that my appetite for venaison should trump any compassion I may feel."
Would not this be more direct, simple, to the point...and honest?
Stephanie Paige Ogburn, online editor.
Anyway, I will behave...
All the hunters I know (and particularly the ones who are most passionate about the hunt) suffer when they kill. I've listened to their stories. I'm not sure they know how to purify themselves of the kill through ceremony, but they certainly feel the need and impulse to do so.
I do not consider hunting sport or recreation. Hunting is the act of a predator. When the predator is human with all his human empathy intact (some no doubt have been stripped of this capacity), the human predator suffers when his prey is killed. All costs taken into account, a hunter with any sense about him (and particularly one on bicycle)in Montana is doing his prey and all of us a favor by being just a bit less dependent on the industrial military complex. Though a vegan diet can be balanced (with the absence of sugar and caffeine), a vegan would not survive a winter in Montana without the industrial complex running in full force. We could argue that humans should not live in Montana...or any place too far from the equator... This may eventually be our fate should any of us survive much longer. In the meantime, weaning ourselves from a dead-end system is a good idea. I long for a revival of all predators (two and four legged) hunting with respect for one another...the human ones showing respect for all.
But, as has been noted, this piece was not written to inspire a general debate about hunting or the killing of other animals for human consumption. I see worldviews colliding in this discussion. Words have never and will never sell a worldview, which only shifts through experience. In this sense, our words just bounce off the walls of identity we've built.
Knowing the area and the community, I figured the author was from Missoula when I saw the title of the piece. I'd like to see more appreciation for the effort to make hunting cost more human energy than it has to today. I applaud the effort. And, I'd like to emphasize that humans (many at least) will eat other animals as long as they are available to us. In my opinion, the debate should be about HOW lives are taken by the human predator. If you find me unfeeling, I invite you to join me for tea. Thanks to all who have shared their views. Special thanks to those who care for wounded animals and to those who are aware they "suffer with" when they take a life. Thank you, Stephanie for clarifying HCN comments policy.
For the record, many of us who work with animals and support compassionate treatment of animals, come to this line or work or belief precisely because we HAVE lived the lifestyle you describe. I grew up with one side of my family having a long lineage in farming. I have lived in rural areas, am experienced with horses, have been around hunting, including family members who hunted, and in places where pretty much all was laid bare in terms of animal slaughter. I found so much of what I saw to be so inhumane, so unpalatable, so lacking in mercy for the animals in question, I changed my lifestyle to match my belief system about the sentience of non-human animals.
To denigrate that choice is simply to show your ignorance and your lack of empathy. It is not a "privilege" to feel another's suffering. It is in fact a burden to truly understand the magnitude of suffering among humans and non-humans both, a weight made heavier by those like yourself who choose to portray empathy and compassion weak and negative qualities. None of us who argue for more compassion in this world need to feel the type of shame you're trying induce. It's a tough road to walk, arguing for the weak when the status quo supports exploitation of those same entities, human and non-human both.
As far as plants having spirit, of course all life on this planet is infused with energy, how much we understand undoubtedly pales in comparison to the reality. Plants, as far as we know currently, do not have the developed sense of pain and nervous systems that animals like birds and mammals do, including us. But even if they did, your comment is a logical fallacy ... that because plants have life energy we should feel free to exploit any life because all life has energy. This simply doesn't hold up as logic or rationale. It's similar to the argument hunters like to use, saying that an Osprey eats a fish, nature is cruel, so we can be cruel as well. Well, we as humans lay claim to intelligence and consciousness. As such, we have moral and culinary choices that an Osprey most likely does not.
As Oscar explained, compassion is not a weakness, and brutality and insensitivity are not strengths. Values that define a disregard for life to be a virtue need to be examined, from wherever they may originate. And values that define insensitivity as a proof of manhood are laughable at best.
Since you brought up the buffalo, yes the bison was "managed" by American hunters in the 19th century, going from an estimated 50 million to perhaps 600, hunters taking nothing but the tongues and the hides in a frenzy of madness and greed, and supported in their killing frenzy by the government, because it was the only way the US could defeat the pains Indian tribes, by eliminating their food source.
That's what hunters do when they are not regulated and held back. Today, they kill off the rhinos, the elephants, tigers, gorillas, etc in other parts of the world. Humanity will not be satisfied until there is nothing left but vultures in the sky and cockroaches and slugs on the land, and the oceans are also empty of any life.
As far as plant consciousness, everything has consciousness, because is immersed in and imbued with energy, even your coffee table, even rocks, and water. And all responds to energy. However, as Oscar pointed out, plants do not have a sophisticated nervous system similar to our...but it does not mean that any life form should not be harvested in gratitude, which is one of the highest form of love, along with
As far as eating meat or not, this is still a semi-free country, more or less, so it is a personal choice. The hunter, in a way, is more honest than the meat eater picking up his diner at the grocery store, and unwilling to look at the hellish realities of factory farms and slaughterhouses. The hunter does get his or her hands bloody, so there is no hypocrisy there. However you should not feel compelled to justify your actions with claims of mystical communion with nature, of wildlife management and other bogus arguments if you choose to kill other sentient being for food.
There are no differences between your horse and a deer or elk, except that one is domesticated and the other is free, and you opt to ride one and kill the other. Would you eat your horse or your dog? If you find the ideas repugnant, that how us vegetarians or vegans, or any other compassionate people, feel about the torturing and killing of any animal for food.
Mike, who seems to speak for the entire state of Montana and to decide who comes and and out of that state (a lot of work for one man, even with a horse), appears to display a lot of pride in his "traditional values" and "honorable lifestyle" that include hunting. But it is not okay to be proud of being compassionate? Huh?
The original point however was not about pride...it was about attempting to explain that there is nothing romantic about hunting, regardless of how the above article attempts to portray hunting with a kind of Hollywood romantic glow (you can almost hear the music fading in the background). That was just too much to stomach. I think we made our points clear...
Happy trails...
Raphael, I offered no postcript to "Pride is poison" that would suggest I meant to discriminate between pride in a nation, pride of an individual, or prideful compassion. Pride poisons the compassion you (and I) proclaim. We all carry pride. Think hard about what pride in our nation (our flag) has resulted in...unspeakable pain and suffering you will see. This is not to say we should not speak our truth and beliefs, only to say there's something to learn from others' truth and beliefs. And, it is not helpful to be proud of being compassionate. Prideful compassion means you feel somehow more compassionate than another...compassion is then something you do, rather than something you are. Compassion is boundless in the sense that it does not discriminate. The effort is to be compassion itself. Takes practice...I fail at this miserably and often. Pride is at its root discriminatory. Again, all points are clear and well taken by me at least. Thanks for caring. Peace.
I have personally no need for pride, compassion is not about pride but about caring and feeling...it is not about ego. Hunting is about ego...stating that one's "traditional values" are superior is about ego.
Standing up for one's beliefs and character when under attack is not about ego.
All I have personally pointed out, along with others, is the dishonesty of this article, and its detachment from reality, from the actual act of killing. If anyone feels guilty about eating meat, and if this contradicts their idea of what it means to be compassionate, this inner conflict is their own personal problem, not mine.
The truth shall set us free! If one feels perfectly okay with the way animals are treated, on farms, in slaughterhouses, in the wild, in fur farms, etc etc, then that's their choice, but they should not hide from the truth and attempt to deny or mask reality, or rationalize their choice. They should say: I like meat, darn it, and it matters not to be whether this cow, pig or deer had to suffer abuse, cruelty and unbelievable pain in order to end up in my plate! My stomach comes first, and that's really all I care about, because I am at the top of the food chain, I am the most evolved digestive track around, and gosh I take pride in this!!
"you did show" (not shoes)
"and it matters not to me whether this cow" (not and it matters not to be)
And then there is the problem of poaching...according to a source in another article, one out of two animal killed in the wild in the US is killed by poachers, who kill whatever they want whenever they want. In my book that makes one out of two hunters a criminal, as far as the law and regulations are concerned, that are in place to prevent an all out killing
frenzy and the complete disappearance of some species.
They hunt because they feel like it, because it is a family tradition, because they like venaison, because they think it is a great way to be in the outdoors, or and for any other reasons that spell unnecessary and unjustifiable killing.
There is no starvation in America yet, and you will notice that none of the pro-hunters in this thread spoke of hunting out of hunger or because of poverty. It may be a choice you made, but is is uncommon. The gear alone hunters need to buy is not affordable by the poor.
And for those who did not know, newsflash: no one outside of Montana has ever ridden a horse...they are no horses outside of Montana, it's that simple.
Some other simple facts: all who express compassion for animals are PC, latte sipping, liberal-minded, prius-driving, whole foods consumers yuppies, and of course they have mac laptops!...Somehow it all goes with being compassionate...If I was sitting on a horse right now, I would be falling off, laughing so hard.
Hey, if I was to visit Montana and felt like I had to ask permission to anyone, I would ask the Native Americans, not the other kind. After all, it's their land, always has been, always will be. End of comments as well, we are getting so far off topic but it was fun as long as it lasted.
The truth is, the government has to bribe the American population with "free Indian land", because no one wanted to venture west. Many died on the trail, not from Indian attacks but from a complete ignorance of how to survive in the wilderness...drinking bad water, etc.
The only people who knew how to survive were mountain men...and only because they had learnt from Indians.
Indians even had to supply the US army with dried buffalo meat...the government did not even know how to feed its own army.
So where does this tradition of living off the land in the west come from? Some are legends in their own minds.
Now if we want to go all the way back to the Puritans in New England, they were starving and completely incapable of taking care of themselves. They were pitiful, and the Indians came to their rescue, for which they were rewarded with diseases and massacres.
Many animals do die of starvation in the winter, because winter range is so much smaller than that in summer, so you see Ms. White might well have saved another doe from dying that slow death you imagined.
As for innocence I'll have you know that doe was a regular Jezebel, cavorting with multiple bucks and telling each paramour that they were the only one. Innocent? Hardly.
Aren't you glad to know hunters have the best interests of animals at heart, and kill only to save animals from suffering the hardships of the wilds? I feel so much better...perhaps they should shoot stray dogs and cats as well, and save animal shelters from the hassle and expense of having to catch and euthanize them. They might even develop a taste for dog meat, who knows? I hear that with the housing crisis, there are plenty of stray, abandoned pets running around. Come on hunters, show a little heart and a little compassion, won't you save these animals as well from painful starvation, with some lead?
If by using the word sadness I impied I'm more compassionate than someone who hunts I didn't mean to.
There's a great book on the topic of the relationship of man to animals that I'd reccomend to anyone interested in the topic. Reading it actually changed my life. Here's a snippet of a review of it from Amazon - I encourage eveyone to google it and consider reading it.
Title - Dominion - the power of man, the suffering of animals and the call to mercy.
"Matthew Scully has written a beautiful book in which he bases his argument for animal protection not on rights, liberation, or ethics, but on mercy. He tells us, "We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us. Animals are so easily overlooked, their interests so easily brushed aside. Whenever we humans enter the world, from our farms, to the local animal shelter to the African savanna, we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike."
An excellent book recommendation for the virulent anti-hunters on the board: "The Vegetarian Myth," by former vegan Lierre Keith. I believe that same book has been excerpted by this fine publication.
I am an unapologetic hunter. When I hunt, my senses are fully activated, as they are at few other times in life. The meat from the hunt satisfies in ways farm-raised meats do not, though I do consume pastured beef, pork, chicken,etc. I honor those animals and the people who raise them by buying them locally, and paying a fair price for them.
Hunting is in our DNA. Our digestive process includes elastace, an enzyme that breaks down a protein only found in animal flesh (elastin.) Animal foods provide an essential nutrient not found anywhere else in nature (B12).
Hunting is THE most ethical way to eat meat, if one chooses to eat meat. It puts you directly in touch with the process. Meat is no longer simply a shrink-wrapped product on display at the local market, but a living, breathing being. Hunting is visceral, real, and authentic in ways that many aspects of modern life are not.
In many states the fees from hunting licensing provides the economic resources for all game conservation and habitat management, and in some cases, state parks as well.
Without hunting, many species will overpopulate and cause habitat damage. Indeed, in my state, areas that don't allow hunting often have pestilent deer problems.
You may deny your own nature as a meat eater, but others do not share your views. You can spew vitriol all you want, but the hunters have always been here, and always, we will remain.
In the final analysis, I honor the animals I hunt. I practice my craft and pray for a quick death for the animal. A skillful hunter will provide a much quicker, cleaner death for his prey than that animal would receive in nature, would it be killed by coyote or wolf or lion or by disease.
Eventually we must all die, and eventually our flesh will be consumed by other beings. ("I want to be buried in plain pine box, sans embalming.." ~Ed Abbey.)
This is the cycle of life. I celebrate it. I'd rather die by the jaws and claws of a mountain lion, than in a hospital bed, entubated, and with some strange person emptying my bedpan. I'm unequivocally sure that the animals we hunt feel the same.
When the debate is reasonable, there is no need for sarcasm. But if you want to hear actual vitriol, listen to how hunters speak of people who are opposed to them! Not beating around the bush and telling it like it is is not vitriol...it's only shocking to hunters who expect non-hunters to be PC, peace-loving, meek individuals.
As far as one's true nature, you could make the argument that the desire for war is also part of human nature...it has gone on since the dawn of humanity. So let's keep going folks, let's keep piling up weapons and sing the glories of war! Forget religions that taught us to seek peace, compassion, understanding and brotherly love, because that's not really part of who we are, that's bleeding heart thinking, ain't it? Better to have bleeding bodies, right?
Lower instincts are not necessarily to be upheld and fulfilled if we are to evolve as a species. If we want to remain cavemen, with sophisticated technologies used to pursue the same old destructive goals, then let's not pretend to be civilized...let's call ourselves technologically advanced barbarians, it will be more honest.
As far as being vegans, it take some education, and one cannot keep the fast food habits and live on fake hamburgers (soy is not necessarily easily digested), coffee and sugar alone and make it. Many people are successful vegans and vegetarians...so if it does not work for you, you have to look at your own failures, not the failure of vegetarianism.
As far as mercy, it comes from compassion, and from respect and love. I find it highly ironic that a civilization (and the people who live within its cultural confines) that is so hell bent on separating and elevating itself from nature at every level and in every possible way, a civilization that claims a superior intelligence and morality over nature, a civilization that seeks to make nature obsolete and irrelevant, nevertheless always turns back to nature when running out of justifications for its most abusive and egregious behaviors...whether it is the exploitation of the so-called weak (using the argument of the "survival of the fittest") or killing or exploiting anything, saying "all animals do it".
Let's make up our minds, people! Are we civilized or are we animals? You can't have it both ways, destroying nature on one hand because claiming superiority over it, and then attempting to justify your behaviors by saying you are just like any other animal, doing your thing as nature intended. Animals live in HARMONY with nature, and never break its laws, ever!
You can't exactly say the same of humanity and its civilization.
I was vegetarian for 2 years, and vegan for another 2+ years. I have professional nutrition training, and thus I wasn't "doing it wrong." No junk food. It just doesn't make sense to me to take synthetic vitamins when better natural alternatives exist.
As for vegetarians being a more compassionate, or merciful way of life towards animals, it doesn't hold water. Vegetarian/veganism is not bloodless. In fact, it's far worse for the environment than sustainably raised, locally consumed pastured animal products. Read Lierre Keith's book. For every acre of monocrop cultivated soybeans, corn or any other grain/legume crop, thousands of animals die. Groundhogs & prairie dogs are poisoned or crushed. Birds are poisoned and shot. Plus groundwater is polluted, and soil is washed away because of tillage, even in organic agriculture.
Permaculture techniques that integrate natural systems and work with nature, including large ungulates, is the way of the future, is more humane, more sustainable, lower carbon footprint, actually sequesters carbon & builds soil, enables concurrent vegetable, fruit & nut farming, makes better yields per acre, and far more money for farmers. It's a win-win.
Your question about whether we are animals or are civilized is an interesting and enlightening one. I for one am 100% certain, and in touch with the fact that I am an animal, albeit a civilized one. After talking with hundreds of current and former vegetarian/vegans, and being one myself, it seems that vegetarianism can be seen as a subconscious response to the visceral nature of being alive on this planet. It's practical denial of our animal nature. But we are animals, and we have animal drives. It is this disconnect from our natural selves that drives much of the consumptive lifestyle. People who deny we are animals seek to place manmade strictures around themselves, artificial barriers between us and nature.
In contrast with native cultures--the Lakota come to mind, as to the Chumash--they existed on plants and animals from the forest, lived as one with nature, took only what they needed, and honored all of it, including our own animal nature.
Repression of any form causes the soul to become sick. This is why priests who take oaths to deny their sexuality become the most sick and perverted beings sexually--they are denied, by the church and their own choices, healthy outlets for that animal nature.
And your last comment about animals living in harmony with nature and not breaking its laws--this is a tautology. They don't break nature's laws because they are a part of it, not because they never do anything that may be perceived as cruel. Quite the opposite, actually.
As a bowhunter and student of ecology, I've been studying wolves. They are models of efficiency and the power of teamwork. They are ruthless killers, and not without behavior that we would project upon them anthropomorphically as cruel. As an example, wolves love, love, love to eat the fetus of pregnant elk. Often, the fetus is ripped out of the cow elk before she has even died, and if the wolves are well-fed, they may only consume the fetus, leaving the rest of the animal to rot. There are countless youtube videos and studies by ecologists and biologists to back this up.
A human sees this and is enraged. A rational hunter knows that this lupine behavior is simply a function of nutrient density vs. time and effort put into the hunt. An ethical human hunter considers that no pregnant female should ever be intentionally taken, and when an animal is killed, as much of its body is to be used as possible. I use everything I can, down to the bone marrow, and the bones get crushed & added to the garden.
We must respectfully and intelligently take part in the cycle of life. Our actions should support and increase biodiversity. The ethical actions of hunters does this. The well-intentioned, but misguided food choices of vegetarians/vegans, whom rely upon monocultured, mass-produced crops, does not. I won't judge, but I ask you to look at the evidence. Look into permaculture. Read Michael Pollan and Joel Salatin. Read Lierre Keith for ecology, and Robb Wolf for nutrition.
Mitakuye Oyasin.
Mono crops are comparable to factory farms in their destructiveness. I am sure you would not defend meat eating by declaring factory farms the ideal source of your food. I would not defend vegetarianism while presenting mono crop agriculture as the ideal way.
Everything in life is a choice...there are many traditional cultures with extremely diverse diets...from the Masai who live mostly on fresh blood and milk from their cattle to Tibetans why are mostly lacto-vegetarians. Vegans and raw foodists are a bit extreme, everything is a matter of balance. Many years ago some people got into the macrobiotic diet and died because they thought they could live on brown rice alone.
What I meant by animals not breaking natural laws is that they live according to what nature intended for them. I am not outraged by animal behavior. I do not judge it. Nature balances itself out. As long as you follow natural laws, and are respectful and appreciative, you are in sync with nature, whether you hunt or tend to your garden, or gather wild roots and berries. People who kill wolves from helicopters are not in sync with nature. When thousands of animals are killed to increase profits, such as in large scale agriculture, or when the raising and butchering of meat becomes a cruel and abusive industry, that's breaking natural laws.
That's the problem with our civilization...civilization is currently acting as a cancer upon the earth, precisely because of its efforts to conquer and overcome, subdue nature. When nature is the "enemy", so is life. And this can only lead to destruction. Thank you Megan for agreeing...
In the end, it comes down to whether we live in our hearts...hunters or not. Native Americans were very respectful of animals "nations" (oyate in Lakota). Too many people today do not live in their hearts...the wallet or the ego rules their lives, and they have no respect for life in any of its forms, and for the spirit or consciousness inherent in all life. After a while, we see nothing but mindlessness and destruction around us. I respect a respectful hunter, and do nor respect a disrespectful one...I am not sure which kind is the most numerous, but would tend to think the latter, unfortunately.
All my relations...That's absolutely everything...plants, animals, rocks, people, trees, mountains, stars. Everything is related and interdependent. It's when we understand the kinship of all living things that we become respectful...wouldn't you say? Something our global civilization has yet to comprehend, while still assuming the role of would be conqueror and master of nature, helped in this process by insensitive, unbalanced technologies.
Civilazation is dramatically uncivilized in how it treats the natural world, but the natural world isn't taking this treatment lying down. Climate change and resource depletion will guarantee that sooner or later, industrial civilization as we know it will be a relic, and only those truly sustainable, resilient microcultures will survive. I have high hopes for humanity and for this planet, and I believe they are founded in good faith that we'll find the way forward by peering inward, using the lens of the heart.
Megan, thanks for your comments too. Regarding what I feed, I feed love.. with elk, venison, pastured beef, local eggs & bacon, lots of homegrown veggies & local fruit. And Chocolate.
The website you listed is pretty darn interesting. Keep up the great work. I'll look out for your work on other media & may be in touch. It seems there are many common threads woven into life's tapestry.
I checked your website Megan, congratulation, you are very accomplished and on a good path. I personally go out in the wilderness, alone, periodically...I need to do it alone, to commune with nature...the last time was 3 months in a row. Nature is my element. There is a spiritual energy throughout the natural world that is vital to the health, development and fulfillment of our human hearts and souls...it is not just "the great outdoors", it is "wakan" (Lakota for sacred and mysterious) and saturated with life force and spiritual energy (prana, negative ions). The most difficult thing is to return to "civilization"...after being at home and free in the wilds....and living and working in a box again (those toxic and cramped environments people call houses and offices).
But I am not vegan, that's too extreme for me at least for now, I am a lacto-vegetarian, and I got into it gradually, not overnight, to let my body adapt. I found that people who cease to eat animal products while exclusively moved by compassion tend to overlook the health aspect and requirements, and that their diet become almost as a religion, a dogma.
I try to keep everything in balance. I think that, actually, all points of view have value, there is no "right" or "wrong"...except that which opposes the natural balance, and our own hearts, souls and conscience. And even these things are not "wrong" in absolute terms, they are simply potentially detrimental and hurtful to the environment, the future generations, the self and/or others. But we all have free will to hurt and be hurt, until we learn, in this lifetime or another.
Still, I see deers every day on my land, it would break my heart to see one of these beautiful, graceful animals stumble and fall, and struggle, hit by something they do not understand and are not made to be protected against, one minute enjoying life as they were meant to, the next slowly and painfully dying without understanding why or how. There is communication between prey and predator, and a deer attacked by a mountain lion understands, at a certain level, what is happening, because it is part of the order of nature, and no animal is stupid or ignorant of nature. But a bullet is not part of nature. It is as foreign to a deer as an alien death ray would be to us.
Feelings are highly personal. I am just expressing mine...not saying they are better or worse than anyone's. I am sorry I was so outraged at the beginning of these commentaries, but the response I got at the top, that stated that my comment about Indians honoring the spirits of animals was stupid, got me on the wrong path, the war path, for a while.
What will we see will be a death and rebirth...a spiritual rebirth. It may not happen for another 50 years. What is happening today are just warnings, nothing serious yet. But a massive and global storm is coming, and the people who will be hurt the most will be the ones who do not understand and resist the transformation...it will be like being swept away by an undertow...if you go with it without panic, you eventually surface, but if you struggle you die (I experienced an undertow, I went with it, surrendered to it, was tossed to the bottom like a cork by a very powerful force, and popped up after a while). This coming change is comparable...It is the Ghost Dance of Native Americans...physical survival should not be the priority at that time, for all will need to look inward, the only secure place they will find being their own eternal inner spirit. It will be a tough lesson, bitter medicine, but a way for humanity to take a huge step forward is its evolution. Are not we here to learn something about ourselves and our own creative powers anyway? There is nothing to fear but fear, as has been said before.
And, speaking of unspeakable harms, Raphael, I'm sure you aware of the dolphin slaughters ongoing in Taiji. Humans are senseless to kill cetaceans no matter how that killing is carried out, and the methods used in Taiji are among the most brutal practices we have going on the planet. Given that bottlenose dolphins are known to have metta cognition (thinking about thinking) and mirror self recognition, these slaughters are the equivalent of locking humans in a cell and forcing mothers to watch as their baby's throats are slashed. We humans have done this to members of our own species, yes. We must stop the dolphin slaughter.
of course, the food we consume is a personal choice. and, there are indegenous hunters who kill cetaceans for survival...or have done so traditionally. trouble is, as has been noted, the vast majority of cetacean kills today are industrialized like everything else and the meat of cetaceans is likely the most toxic on the planet...that is, other than our own flesh. sucks to fear the water we drink and food we consume, eh? what a mess.
and, my last thought on veganism/vegetarianism: a dear friend of mine who is an activist vegan (does not eat honey, use leather or silk) has said that consuming dairy is even worse than consuming meat because it requires separating babies and mommas. She said she would eat meat before ever including dairy in her diet again.
I am not convinced, but am beginning to think that both apocalyptic cries and a call to enlightenment (at least as popularized today) result in a certain apathy we cannot afford at this time. yes, the planet and civilization are in transition and where there is change there is loss. How we treat ourselves and one another will determine the pain (and subsequent suffering) of our losses. I do not fear death, I fear pain. So, being unenlightened as I am, fear motivates me to work toward minimizing pain in this world...not to avoid pain that exists, but to work toward preventing senseless harms. Raphael, the experience you describe in your last paragraph above reminds me of a series of dreams I had a couple years back. thanks for the reminder. best, m
As always, I appreciate your comments at HCN.org. However, this thread is overlong and fairly off topic at this point. So, unless you have something to add that is referencing the article itself, I ask that you take this side conversation private and hold it amongst yourselves and off HCN.org, as the intention of allowing comments is to have them focus on the content and issues brought up in the article, and these comments are well on their way to being a separate (albeit interesting) conversation, one that I don't feel it is appropriate for the High Country News web site to host.
Thank you,
Stephanie Paige Ogburn, online editor.


text:
Here's how RW members rated this race in the past (480 votes).
In short: Fabulous fabulous fabulousIn full: 3rd time here (2 mara 1 10k) a must for anyone , yes its hard but the scenery and everything else make up for it in bucketloads, i love this race, its my favourite everDate of review: October 21, 2007
In short: outstanding organisation and a fantastic race..... definitely be back next yearDate of review: October 21, 2007
In short: Top-notch of a race.In full: Delight in running this race altho you do ache in some strange places with the steep downhill parts during the 1st 6 miles.The hills @ 18 & 21 are ok if you have got someone near you to help you work thru it.The staff are very clued up.Nothing seems to bother them.Goody bag excellent.Didnt have meal after race as i wasnt ready for any food.My mate enjoyed it tho.Def be back next year.Date of review: October 15, 2007
In short: Awesome race, well worth the long journeyIn full: After a strenuous trip up north it was well worth the drive !A massive PB of some 7 mins, giving me my first sub 3 hr marathon (2.53.57).Scenery is fantastic, and conditions on race day were just perfect !Will definitely be back again.Who needs to go to London to run in all that smog when you can run a beautiful marathon like this (and still get a pb) !Date of review: October 14, 2007
In short: Fantastic views in a great part of the countryIn full: Excellent camaraderie amongst the runners, fantastic views along the Loch. That Hill went on forever at 17-19 miles.Negative: The start was too rushed due to not enough toilet facilities! Get in a Trough or two as urinals for the blokes and get those queues down! We were being rushed all the time we were at the start, and didn't have time for the pre-race rituls, didn't even see the warm up!Not a big negative but definitely room for improvement for next year.Apart from that a Great day, and a great break in the Highlands!Date of review: October 12, 2007
In short: Absolutely Fantastic!!!In full: The weather was perfect, the scenery was absolutely amazing but I will have to do more hill training before next year!! The organisation was excellent and it's the best goody bag I've ever received! The medal and t-shirt are pretty special too. All in all, a must-do marathon. Very tough but I knocked 14mins off my pb so pretty happy with that ;)Date of review: October 12, 2007
In short: FAB FAB FAB FAB FABIn full: 6th time I've run this, and it gets better every year. Even the weather was perfect.Date of review: October 11, 2007
In short: Loved itIn full: A must do race, hopefully I'll be back next year.Date of review: October 11, 2007
In short: Only a sighting of the Monster would have made this a better race. In full: Superb organisation. Wonderful scenery. Fab medal and goody bag. Although the hills felt tough I knocked 15 minutes of my PB - so it couldn't have been all that bad!! This is a Must-Do marathon and try to combine it with a few days in beautiful Inverness. Date of review: October 11, 2007
In short: The Perfect Marathon!In full: Made a week of it in the highlands with the marathon in the middle. Tough but fantastic, you must do this one if no other, and if you do, look back when you get to the 17 mile mark. If the hill doesn't take you breath away, the view will!Date of review: October 10, 2007
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Click here
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
Injury Clinics
About Runner's World

subset: commoncrawl


text:
April 18, 2011 WIC Update
SUBJECT 1: Invitation for FY 2012 Breastfeeding Peer Counseling (BFPC) Program
SUBJECT 2: WIC Breastfeeding Friendly WIC Clinic Application
SUBJECT 3: Transportation for MO Health Net Eligible Participants
SUBJECT 4: Food Instruments - Void - Redeemed
Invitation for FY 2012 Breastfeeding Peer Counseling (BFPC) Program: If your agency is interested in participating in the FFY 2012 BFPC program, please see the attached letter. Applications will be completed online this year. So if your agency is interested in applying, please click here to complete the online application and attach your BFPC agency plan. For those who have access, your User ID and Password will be the same as the one used for the LAP and WIC online invoice. If you have not completed an ASAP to request access, please see the WIC Update posted on April 4, 2011 for more information. The deadline for completing the application is COB on May 13, 2011. If you have any questions please contact Leona Greer at firstname.lastname@example.com or by phone at 573-751-6498. (ONE ATTACHMENT)
WIC Breastfeeding Friendly WIC Clinic Application: The state WIC office announced criteria for local WIC providers to gain the designation of "Breastfeeding Friendly" in a WIC Update posted on January 18, 2011. The purpose of this statewide effort is to implement evidence-based breastfeeding strategies to encourage and recognize local WIC providers that offer an optimal level of breastfeeding support. This concept was discussed at the "Using Loving Support to Grow and Glow in WIC" training that was attended by all local WIC staff last year. The WIC Breastfeeding Task Force worked with the state office to develop the specific criteria that must be met to be recognized as a "Breastfeeding Friendly WIC Clinic".
If your agency would like to apply for "Breastfeeding Friendly" status for FFY2012, please click here to complete the online application. If you completed an ASAP request for the BFPC application, you will also have access to this application. Once it is determined that your agency meets all the criteria, additional funding will be provided to your agency for FY2012. We realize that as evidence-based breastfeeding strategies are implemented and more WIC mothers initiate and continue to breastfeed, more local WIC staff time is needed for breastfeeding support. The extra funding provided must be used for additional staff time and will need to be budgeted in the FY 2012 LAP under SF3. Funding amounts will vary from $10,000 to $50,000 per year, depending on your agency's prenatal/breastfeeding caseload. Additional recognition will be provided, including a plaque to hang in your clinic. The deadline for completing the application is COB on May 13, 2011. If you have any questions please contact Kathy Mertzlufft at firstname.lastname@example.com or by phone at 573-526-4792.
Transportation for MO Health Net Eligible Participants: Some local WIC agencies have expressed concern that their caseload has declined due to the possibility of participants not having transportation to attend their WIC appointments. The state office has contacted Missouri Transportation Management (MTM) who manages non-emergency medical transportation. Since many of our participants are participating in MO Health Net, these participants can utilize the MTM services to attend their WIC appointments. Eligible participants would need to call MTM 5 days prior to any of their medical appointments to arrange for pick-up. Other children who are not covered by MO Health Net may utilize this service as long as the parent/guardian has an approved safety seat for any child less than 45 pounds. Local WIC Providers are encouraged to provide this referral to eligible participants by having them contact MTM at 1-866-269-5927 to arrange for transportation. The local agency shall not provide information over the phone to MTM confirming/denying if the participant attended their WIC appointment(s). The LWP shall request MTM to fax verification for reimbursement to the local agency. The LWP will then have the participant sign the verification form before the LWP faxes it back to MTM. If you have questions about this information, please contact your district TA team.
Food Instruments - Void – Redeemed: Missouri WIC received a finding from the State Auditor for WIC checks that are voided in MOWINS and later redeemed. Why are checks voided and later cashed? These reports will assist us in identifying the reasons for voided checks being cashed and preventing future occurrences.
Food Instruments (FI) that have been keyed as void in MOWINS should never be given to the participant.
New reports have been written and posted to Crystal Reports to assist agencies in identifying FI's that have been keyed as void and later redeemed (refer to "Changes to Crystal" below). LWP's must research each FI on the new report and document as much detailed information as possible about why the FI was keyed as void and why it was given to the participant. Documentation must be done in two ways: (1) As a general note in each participant folder in MOWINS. (2) Submit documentation to your Technical Assistance (TA) staff. In the documentation to your TA staff, you must also state how your agency will assure that this does not happen in the future. Refer to the WIC Operations Manual (WOM) Administration Volume: Food Instrument Accountability section.
Changes to Crystal:
- A new folder has been created under WIC Reports – Local Agency. The folder is called Food Instrument (FI) Reconciliation.
- Under the new folder mentioned in 1 above, are two new folders:
- Void/Lost/Stolen FI's – Redeemed. This folder contains a new report that shows all FI's for the last three full months that were keyed as void, lost, or stolen and later redeemed. There is a version that can be viewed in Crystal format and there is a version that can be exported to Excel.
- Void/Lost/Stolen FI's – Redeemed and Not Redeemed. This folder contains four reports that were previously posted under the Clinic Management folder. The reports in this folder show all FI's for the last three full months that were keyed as void, lost, or stolen – and shows if they were redeemed or not.
Click here for Instructions on using Crystal Reports. These instructions also explain how to export to Excel.
If you have trouble running any report in Crystal, please contact the WIC Help Desk at 800-554-2544.
For assistance in using and interpreting the reports on Crystal, please contact your TA team.
BFPC Program FY2012 Invitation Letter


text:
With nearly 150 days to go until the 2013 International Paralympic Committee Swimming World Championships take place in Montreal, Canada, the IPC revealed its Ones to Watch list for this season today. Jessica Long, the United States Olympic Committee's 2012 Paralympic SportsWoman of the Year, is the only American athlete on the list.
The IPC's Ones to Watch initiative will showcase some of the top swimmers around the world who will be medal contenders in Montreal in order to help raise their profiles among fans and media in the lead-up to the World Championships and other major events.
The 2013 IPC Swimming World Championships will attract around 650 swimmers from more than 60 countries to Montreal from 12-18 August, including the majority of medal winners from London 2012 as they begin their preparations for Rio 2016.
The Ones to Watch list for swimming consists of 16 athletes, including London 2012 gold medalists Matthew Cowdrey, Daniel Dias, Jacqueline Freney, Long and Ellie Simmonds.
Cowdrey became Australia's most successful Paralympian of all-time in London after winning another five golds, two silvers and a bronze, while Freney was the most decorated individual medalist at the Games, winning gold in all eight events she competed in at the Aquatics Centre.
Brazil's Dias received the Laureus World Sportsperson of the Year with a Disability Award earlier this week for his performances at London 2012, which included six gold medals. As a 10-time Paralympic champion, he is his country's most successful athlete over the last decade.
Jessica Long and Ellie Simmonds, meanwhile, have become the swimming poster girls for USA and Great Britain, winning five and two golds, respectively, in London. Long also won two silver medals and a bronze, making the podium in eight of her nine events.
The Ones to Watch campaign also includes Canada's Benoit Huot and Summer Mortimer, who are expected to be the host nation's heroes at this year's World Championships.
The complete list of Ones to Watch for swimming can be found at paralympic.org/Swimming/Athletes/Ones.
Craig Spence, IPC Director of Media and Communications, said: "With the amount of success our Ones to Watch campaign had for athletes in the lead-up to the London 2012 Paralympic Games, we now look to continue to build up the profiles of the leading swimmers to make them household names in their countries for the World Championships and heading into Rio 2016.
"The list of swimmers includes seasoned veterans with numerous Paralympic titles and world records to their names, as well as emerging talent in the sport who fans and media are bound to hear about for years to come."
Ones to watch athlete profiles on Paralympic.org will make up an information hub that includes their achievements, biographies, latest news, images and video footage. A number of other activities will also be implemented across social media in a concerted effort to boost the profiles of these athletes and make them household names for years to come.
The IPC's Ones to Watch campaign launched in the lead-up to London 2012, when a new section was included within Paralympic.org, entitled Ones to Watch. This series of pages was designed to raise the profiles of leading medal contenders in Paralympic sports and act as an essential media resource.
At London 2012, the IPC worked with Samsung to launch an innovative project that involved the Ones to Watch athletes called Samsung Bloggers. Athletes recorded video blogs from behind the scenes during the Paralympics and by the end of the Paralympics the blogs had received over 350,000 views.


text:
What's clear is that providing fish passages at a dam is not a panacea.lessons, as well. Even as some large dams in the U.S. begin to be removed for environmental reasons, a hydropower boom is occuring worldwide. Thirty large dams have been announced for the Amazon River alone. Eleven major dams are planned for the lower Mekong River. The dam industry in Canada wants to dramatically expand its recent hydropower initiative.
These rivers and others have multiple dams blocking access to historical spawning reaches.decided to launch a survey of the actual long-term results of fish passages on large, heavily dammed rivers.
With very low or high waters, fishways don't work well or shut down altogether.of Pennsylvania and almost 500 miles to Cooperstown in central New York. Shad schools driving upriver on the Susquehanna were so enormous that they were visible in the distance to commercial fishermen by the waves they pushed ahead of them. One notable haul of mixed shad and river herring made in 1827 was estimated at 15 million fish; it took more than three days to offload the catch into wagons.
Rarely does even a single salmon or shad make it as far as the Amoskeag Dam.improvements is limited by costs and the inflexibility of the utilities. That industry is in control may be atoned for with feel-good shad fishing derbies or informational facilities. The Amoskeag Fishways Learning and Visitors Center on the Merrimack in New Hampshire, for example, features a giant sculpture of a leaping American shad. Sadly, though, during most recent years that is the only anadromous fish you will see at the center, for rarely does even a single living salmon, shad, river herring, or sea lamprey make it as far as the Amoskeag Dam.
MORE FROM YALE e360
The Natural World Vanishes:
How Species Cease To Matter


text:
Judge upholds right to paddle through private lands
A state Supreme Court judge has found that Adirondack Explorer magazine Editor Phil Brown had the right to paddle on waterways that run through private property in northwest Hamilton County, and that the waters should be open to the public.
Brown, a Saranac Lake resident, was in court because the Brandreth Park Association and Friends of Thayer Lake had sued him for trespassing after he paddled on waters surrounded by their lands.
The case stems from May 2009, when Brown paddled Mud Pond and Shingle Shanty Brook as part of a multi-day trip from Little Tupper Lake to Lake Lila, which are connected by a series of streams, ponds and canoe carries. Most of the trip is in the state-owned William C. Whitney Wilderness, and there is a canoe carry on state land around the waters in question, if people choose not to paddle Mud Pond and the upper reaches of the Shingle Shanty Brook.
The lawsuit was filed in November 2010 after Brown wrote about his experiences in the Explorer. His writings attracted other paddlers to the property and drew criticism from the landowners.
State Supreme Court Justice Richard T. Aulisi ruled that Brown had the right to paddle the waters because they were "navigable in fact." The landowners have been told they must take down any "no trespassing" signs that pertain to the waters. However, they are free to post and prosecute trespassers who fish there or enter other parts of their property.
"I thought we felt we had a very strong case," said Brown's attorney, John Caffry of Glens Falls. "It wasn't a huge surprise, but you can never be sure, so we were pleased that the judge agreed with us and the state on this one."
After pursuing the issue through articles, Brown was later backed by the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which ordered the landowners to take down cables across the waterways. When the case went to court, the attorney general's office took Brown's side as one of three involved parties.
Caffry's defense was based on the Moose River case in 1998 that eventually opened up a 12-mile stretch of the South Branch of the Moose River, located in the southwestern Adirondacks, to paddlers. He was also an attorney for the paddlers in that case. He said waterways that are navigable in fact have been considered open to the public for hundreds, or even, thousands of years.
Waterways are navigable in fact if they have a capacity to withstand use, Caffry told the Enterprise in November. He said that can be proven by commercial means, such as log driving, or recreational means, such as paddling.
"It's part of New York law based on the English common law … and goes back to the Roman law – the idea that the waterways are open to the public," Caffry said. "There was certainly a time when roads were few and far between and rivers were the main source, or route, of transportation. Now they aren't as necessary for that purpose, but they still remain open to the public, and when the state sells the land underlying the river, it still retains the right of navigation on behalf of the public."
In this case, the waters were proved navigable not only for Brown, but by the fact that they have been travelled on them as far back as the 19th century, when guidebook writer E.R. Wallace used them. The private landowners have also paddled them, and so have other members of the public who apparently followed Brown's lead.
Both Tom Woodman, publisher of the Explorer, and Brown said they felt relieved to win the lawsuit, although both said they are still waiting to find out if the plaintiffs will appeal the decision. A phone call on Wednesday afternoon to Glens Falls attorney Dennis Phillips, who represents the plaintiffs, was not returned by press time this morning.
"We felt that, not only for the good of the Explorer but for paddlers' rights generally, that we needed to win this case," Woodman said. "So we're very happy the judge agreed with us."
"I'm thrilled," Brown said. "I think it's a victory for paddlers. … It reaffirms that paddlers do have the right to travel through private lands on navigable waters, so any paddler in a similar situation could cite this case."
Leading up to the judge's decision, none of the parties disputed the fact that the waterways were navigable in the general sense of the word. What they disagree about is the legal definition of the term "navigable in fact." How this was interpreted by the judge ultimately decided the outcome of the case.
Phillips said a waterway must have a history of commercial use to meet the legal definition, but the judge ruled against him. Phillips said there was no commercial use of these waterways, in part because they are too small and couldn't support those types of activities.
Brown's original article about his May 2009 trip was one of several the Explorer wrote about the issue of navigability. None of the others led to a lawsuit.
"I didn't set out to get sued," Brown said. "I set out to write a story, and essentially I was doing what reporters do. I was collecting facts. Obviously, I thought I had the right to use these waterways, so I simply wanted to exercise that right and write about what I saw."
Contact Mike Lynch at 891-2600 ext. 28 or email@example.com.