The “S-word” -

In response to “outside“ attempts in the US Congress to stop private aircraft from wiping out Alaska‘s wolf populations, Alaska State Fish and Game officials were flushed out of their business-administrative-political lairs to again claim once more that wolves are being killed for ”subsistence.” Still no explanation what they mean by “subsistence.” Maybe like Point Hope---just keep killing caribou until you find one you like and leave the rest to rot and the orphaned calves to die. Even Natives have forgotten what subsistence means after the newcomers destroyed that lifestyle decades ago.

Neither the State nor anyone else has ever offered a clear definition of what in blazes, exactly, is “subsistence.” Fat people eating wolves? Washed up former Alaska State legislators eating bears? The State is very careful not to actually tell anyone what, precisely, legally, they mean by the term “subsistence” because it is just a buzzword to justify the indiscriminate slaughter of Alaska’s wildlife for the sheer pleasure of killing something that can’t fight back and the great profits to be made by catering to the vehicular and other needs of the inadequate males and she-males who support the wildlife killing industries with their disposable “subsistence“ income. It’s a lie and a falsehood---business-political propaganda.

And killing wolves is “working,” according to the scientific sellouts in Fish and Game. Again, what exactly is it that’s “working” about the predator control massacre? Lots of dead wolves? There was no scientific evidence going into this mass-killing mess and there is none coming out.

So, in this age of antiscience and public and political corruption you still think Alaska’s massacre of wolves and bears (after having massacred the moose) is a “scientific” beacon? Hey, that’s the beauty of wacko-magical thinking---annihilation is “abundance” is "science" is "subsistence."

I refer murderous wildlife mismanagers to my two previous blogs and the near-total absence of everything wild in an area where there can’t be any subsistence because there isn‘t any wildlife.

But the $50,000 “subsistence” aircraft are right now flying low overhead---looking to spot those very last moose so they can GPS the coordinates and dispatch the motorized battalions to clean them out. Pricey four, six and eight-wheeled, tracked and big-wheeled “subsistence” toys are already arriving on enclosed $5000 “subsistence” trailers hauled by $40,000 “subsistence“ pickups, staging their mechanized “subsistence” assaults to begin picking off wildlife stragglers in a few days. How’s that working out? How "scientific" is that?

Blognote:

Julia O‘Malley, I have to essentially agree with fellow voice, Geoff Kennedy (maybe because we have New York in common).

At least you weren’t surprised that Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan vetoed the gay rights ordinance. He knows his unctuous, anxious constituency.

It’s what Jesus would have done if he had to choose between the “rights” of a bunch of uptight, self-righteous prigs or another one of them downtrodden “minority“ groups.” Jesus was, after all, a home-owning, tax-paying businessman and solid citizen of the Empire. Obviously a conservative Republican.

The religious right (see “The 2.5 designated sins“) considers eliminating your gay rights their “moral“ victory. Because they are in thrall with evil (they gave us George W. Bush, remember?) you are now their symbolic and almost only moral cause because they ain’t got nothin’ else.

Anyway, if I were gay I sure as hell wouldn’t “come out” today. Anyone who thinks that the young are more tolerant than the old may be correct to some extent. But the young people on the left today---everyone on the left today except the “radicals”---have lost their nerve, their courage, their guts. They wouldn’t protect you at all from the thugs and goons on the right except maybe on the Internet.

I support you and wish you well but you have to be more paranoid and suspicious in these paranoid, suspicious and irrational times. I admire you and your courage but you are too good for this bigoted, ignorant and violent society. And too trusting in the younger generation for your own good. Just look at how quickly and easily the young hope of the left, Barack Obama, double-crossed the left and is making bipartisan nice with the wack-jobs seeking to destroy him anyway.

Rudy Wittshirk

_____________

Here are my responses to comments:

Prey:

Killing wild game to eat it for survival---I get that meaning of “subsistence.” My main point is that---without some uniform, legal definition of the word “subsistence”---wildlife abuse will continue with everyone calling it “subsistence” until there is nothing left for use by anyone under any name. Which is why I am so hard on the State of Alaska and it’s political-business motivations to leave the meaning blurred, vague, imprecise and unclear. The State of Alaska resists actually defining the word “subsistence” because any reasonable adherence to the strict dictionary definition would rule out most members of the dominant, industrial-agriculture-subsistence tribe.

It’s also a matter of business welfare to keep subsistence vague---it supports those who make money by outfitting those members of my industrial-agriculture-subsistence-based tribe who want to play primitive hunter-gatherer in their spare time, take all the wildlife and still get the State to imply it is some kind of genuine “subsistence” activity just like Natives do.

I did not mean to sound so critical of Natives. Natives must compete with the hunter-gatherer fantasies of my tribe which has taken over “game management” and must have it’s egos appeased like minor gods. Natives are victims of cultural destruction, struggling to retain something of their proud heritage. I get that.

Angayukut:

Two subjects in one blog! OMG! Look, I separated the two subjects---which is how you should read them. Talking about more than one thing at a time is not necessarily a "rant."

My satirical take on the followers of Jesus was pretty broad. If I said Jesus was packing a 9mm Glock would you recognize that as satire? Anyway, it’s the religion of my tribe and I did my time in Sunday School. You are not seriously going to ask me to retract my tongue-in-cheek statement that Jesus was a “Republican” are you? In your defense, my tribe doesn’t get satire either.

On” subsistence”---why not set me straight. Why can I not “say a word about subsistence” until I live in a village for a year? I have an imagination and can visualize.

Of course I rage---for 23 years I have observed wildlife of all species getting wiped out around here to near-zero numbers by mostly members of my own tribe on a systematic, non-stop basis allowed by our wildlife caretakers, the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game. Your response is, in many ways, typical of those made by my own tribe through the years. They never actually directly address the lack of wildlife, question my claims or dispute my observations---they just call it a “rant” and never offer an actual rebuttal.

DesaJacobbson:

When there is no clear, legal definition of “subsistence,” killing wildlife for religious purposes becomes subject to abuse. Just look at the spectacle of well-fed members of my tribe who claim to get all “religious” simply because they use overwhelming vehicular horsepower and overwhelming firepower to blast some poor animal---and then have the nerve to call it “subsistence“ as well.

The Point Hope Incident:

So how, exactly, is my Point Hope reference “not true?” I simply used what the defense attorneys gave as the defense---that it was some sort of cultural practice of subsistence. This Point Hope incident will not help the cause of Native subsistence rights no matter what the legal verdict.

I’m sure most cultures have admonitions not to eat tainted meat. But 100 or so caribou were gunned down and nobody said a thing to publicly warn any other village or other hunters.

No one claimed the “tainted meat subsistence” defense until authorities scoped out the perpetrators involved. “Diseased” or “polluted” caribou---possibly “tainted” by industrial pollutants from the Red Dog Mine? That’s what defense attorneys said.

So why wasn’t that concern shared right away---before charges were brought? Why wasn’t Fish and Game alerted so they could dissect the bodies, take samples and determine the exact cause of that alleged “taint” before the carcasses rotted into the tundra? Analyzing the causes of these things is one thing my tribe does well.

Sure, the accused will probably get off with an all Point Hope jury and slick defense counsel not afraid to play the race card, the religion card and the subsistence card. OJ Simpson’s lawyer, Johnny Cochran, would have been proud.

But Point Hope owes everyone an explanation---why did they not offer warnings about the tainted caribou? Wouldn’t that be some kind of elder-wisdom?

I’m guessing no one in Point Hope gave any public warnings about bad-meat-caribou because they knew laws had been broken and they wanted to keep the hunters off the hook.

It’s not like it wouldn’t eventually be found out---all those rotting corpses on the tundra are too hard to hide from passing aircraft and such a massive slaughter too big to keep quiet. Someone could have anonymously alerted authorities if there was concern about something being so wrong with this most important subsistence resource that the meat had to be left to rot and couldn‘t even be fed to dogs. What would happen if wild predators ate that “tainted” meat? Would they be poisoned or what? Did anyone think of that? And what about the calves of the killed mothers? If their meat wasn’t tainted that would be some mighty good eating rather then just letting them die on the tundra.

“Customary and traditional” is a revered concept but also a legal-political slogan. Native claims to “subsistence” are based on real cultural traditions and Bush realities. So I support Native subsistence rights but still need to point out that it is not your elders’ subsistence anymore.

“Subsistence” is more than just killing and eating or engaging in religious practices---it’s about caring enough for the animals and their future users to take steps to ensure their health and wellbeing and to warn others of possible dangers from eating tainted meat.

Zippy_pinhead:

You make my case for me---I didn’t add the motor-homes-on-wheels to my tribe‘s endless list of luxury “subsistence” must-have-items because I didn’t want to be accused of ranting.

My comments directly reflect on the heart of subsistence---“need.“ My tribe rejects needs-based subsistence because they would qualify even less as subsistence users---despite the fact that the Alaska State Constitution labels them as such. There’s the problem with a system set up by my tribe in order to get not only the game but the subsistence name as well. They want it all and, as a consequence, we are losing it all.

But well-to-do Natives in urban and other areas want special rights to hunt based on religious (cultural) reasons alone so they have also rejected a needs-based system such as in the Nenana Caribou hunt.

Obviously, a need-based subsistence definition must take precedence over all others. Is that not the true spiritual heart of subsistence? Isn’t that why is subsistence is “sacred?” Because the poorest and most helpless and old and ill among us “need” to be fed? And the meat distributed anonymously in the true spirit of the true “subsistence” hunter?

On another, more delightful subject: Zippy The Pinhead is (really) my favorite microcephalic
comic book character who uttered these immortal words upon sliding the length of a fully-loaded banquet table: “Once I was dry. Now I am wet. Have I always been this moist.”

Sincerely (except for the satire part) - Rudy Wittshirk

<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

Response to Desa Jacobbson:

“The Point Hope Incident” obviously touched a nerve. But the prosecution in the upcoming trial (assuming it is competent) will bring up even more questions than I raised. I do hope the trial works out for the benefit of Native people.

Your responses---pity, derision and a vague threat (“appropriate parties”)---contained no rebuttals, no explanations and no attempts to correct my apparently grievous misconceptions. Perhaps defense counsel can use this dialogue to anticipate questions from the prosecution---if it goes to trial at all. Neither the State nor Natives want a “subsistence trial” at this time and a plea deal seems the least embarrassing way out for both parties.

Since I may be eligible to vote on “rural” and “subsistence” issues in the future (and will continue to write about them) I wouldn’t have minded learning more. Nevertheless, I will continue to support Native subsistence rights over the feeble “subsistence” claims of my own tribe.

Rudy Wittshirk

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>