Send the Jersey Deer to Alaska

With some amusement I recently read an article about folks in New Jersey protesting the hunting of excessive suburban deer populations. Having been a former Jersey girl myself, I have witnessed first hand how the deer populations just seemed to explode in the past 15 years and with them the disturbing increase in deer ticks and Lyme disease. Where once any hoofed creature would have been a rare sight, roving gangs of suburban deer wander the streets in Northern New Jersey.
I can sympathize with the protesters point of view--after all, the deer can be considered a success, considering that there is no such thing as wild habitat left in Northern New Jersey. And lets face it-- hunting is just not something that happens out there, nor is anyone comfortable with the concept. Of course these quasi-wild deer could best be managed with their own natural "wild managers"--coyotes and wolves. But even the Jersey bunny huggers probably draw the line at wolf hugging. It seems everyone back East is convinced that a coyote will simply eat their baby, right off their suburban porch.
Meanwhile, here in Alaska, all the hunters bitch and moan that there are never enough ungulates (moose, caribou) to hunt and chase. Thus the wolves and bears are always blamed as unfavorable competition, and "predator managed" to boost the hoofed critter populations.
I don't want those nasty deer ticks , but maybe the Alaska hunters would appreciate a giant jumbo jet filled with Jersey deer dropped and parachuted over interior Alaska. Should be plenty to go around--for the hunters plate as well as the neighborhood wolves. In exchange we could send some wolves back East- to help those guys out naturally as well.
Somehow, I don't think my wildlife management ideas will roll with anyone, but it's a shame that humans are so short-sighted that animal populations always seem to be at the mercy of local politics, and not the natural ecology....

Two Girls Lost in Denali Alaska

Recently two young ladies in their 20's unintentionally extended their hiking trip, i.e. "disappeared" in Denali National Park. Of course, by now everyone knows the happy outcome-- a lucky phone call was made and they were found alive and well.
The more unfortunate part was reading the Anchorage Daily News "comments" section, where some opinionated & grumpy Alaskans had quite a lot of negative things to say. Mostly the writers were upset that the search operation cost a lot of money and volunteer time. Then, after the ladies were found they seemed much too giddy about their situation. I guess everyone wanted to see them injured and weeping--especially since so much "money" was spent.
I personally didn't really like the aloof attitude of the girls on the TV news either, however, it did highlight an overlooked point--the girls didn't ask for a giant rescue operation and obviously didn't feel it was necessary.
So how can you blame the girls if they felt they were safe (it was summer after all). It's as if the critics want them to pay back the money and apologize for the rescue they never requested. But is that really fair? That people should fear hiking or mountain trips in case somebody else decides to "rescue" them and send a bill??
Overall the wilderness isn't always the "dangerous" place so many fear. Winter can be tricky in Alaska, but summertime hikers and campers should be given the benefit of a doubt. They can come out unscathed after all, and maybe shouldn't be blamed for being able to do so.

Why is PTSD Stigmatized as a Disorder?

In times of war, discussions regarding PTSD make the news headlines. Civilians experiencing tragedy and disaster most definitely experience the same affliction, making it a fairly common human experience. My quandary however, is the last part of the acronym- the word "disorder".
I am assuming that it is considered a disorder, because feelings of depression, rage, fear or guilt that interfere with everyday functioning are a no-no in normal society. But what then is the acceptable response to tragedy & death?
Do we want a society where it is healthy to watch others be blown to pieces and the citizens witnessing such an event can brush it off and just move on? Why is there shame when a human being experiences an obvious biological response to unspeakable violence and destruction?? Isn't it actually better for a society's survival to over-react to death and gore instead of ignore it? I say, label it Post Traumatic Stress Response, drop the 'disorder' stigma and accept that humans just might not be able to experience brutality and then live happily ever after...

No Money, No Time

I am learning that a dent in finances significantly reduces leisure time. Probably one of the reasons so many folks are vegetating in front of the TV may be simply because they outsource their problems. If one decides that "I will fix, build, grow" everything I need without outside assistance, then one is a busy beaver indeed.
I have found that the luxury of becoming fat in front of the TV is impossible, once we try to do everything ourselves. The time commitment is incredible--yet no one seems to understand.
The short list of our time suckers just this spring:
--Repairing the old garden tractor engine (can never be brought anywhere for repair as we don't even own a trailer)
--Chopping fire wood without renting a pesky log-splitter
--Maintaining veggie and herb garden
--Building a rustic door from scratch
--Varnishing moldings and shelves
--Eliminating carpenter ants with bizarre and non-toxic methods
--cleaning up after way too many dogs and cats
--installing and finishing tongue and groove flooring
The only "problem" we outsourced to another professional was the porcupine quill removal from the dogs nose. And that was simply way beyond our expertise, but I am sure others would scoff at that expense as well...
There you have it! No leisure time, but we are quite content after all! Good night.

Complacency vs. Contentment

Recently I heard someone complain that complacency was one of the worst human characteristics one can have. Being complacent suggests smugness, laziness, aloofness and other negative connotations. But whenever I hear the word "complacent" I always think--but isn't that also contentment?? And contentment brings out warm and fuzzy feelings of happiness, love and general well being.
So what's the deal??? I looked both words up in my mini Websters dictionary, and alas, no clarity was achieved. Complacency means smug, which by definition is: self-satisfied. Content is simply defined as "satisfied". Huh? In other words being self-satisfied is bad, but being satisfied is good, yet they technically mean the same thing. (ok, so maybe a smug person brags about it--but when is bragging a bad thing in our society?)

So that's what I was afraid of. These words are so similar that nobody wants to admit that -hey contentment isn't really a good thing either. These two words fascinate me so, because our whole western civilization is driven by the fear of complacency. By being complacent , (i.e. content) one would be satisfied with their small house, older car, outdated jeans and ragged lawn....and that would be bad for the economy and even worse, your neighbors would laugh at you behind your back.
Of course, I can't say I recommend contentment with bad hygiene, deviant behavior and such, but economic contentment would be a relief! Not only to our environment but help curb some stress to boot. But with economic contentment, comes a stagnant economy--which is a shame, that we can't develop a whole new system--based on people actually being satisfied and that being a good thing.