39. Blackmailing insecurity

By the time Senator Joyce Moran (D-OH) finally got home, it was past 10:30 pm. She went straight to her master bedroom ensuite to run a hot bath.  It had been a long and stressful day, and the stress hadn't left her. Even five hours since the congressional hearing of HR-1944, she still felt tight as a drawn bow, and the only way to release that tension was to fire off that arrow. In spite of death threats she was pushing ahead with her bill, and it was not making her popular. If you take a poll of all congresspeople on whether they support recreational hunting, it would be a safe bet to predict that 90-95% of Democrats and 95-100 % of Republicans would vote YES. The only thing that shielded her and HR-1944 from an all-out attack in Congress was Mark Lee, whose cool logic silenced all critics.

Wade Coen (R-GA): “Dr. Lee, are you for or against hunting?”

Mark Lee: “This question is irrelevant. HR-1944 is about culling, not hunting.”

WC: “What is the difference?”

ML: “The intention. Culling is about population control. Hunting is about killing for sport.”

WC: “And are you for or against culling as a means of population control?”

ML: “Against.”

WC: “Why?”

ML: “Because, one, it does not work as claimed, and two, there is a far better alternative.”

WC: “Culling has been the sole means of deer population control since deer population problems began. If it doesn't work, why would that be?”

ML: “It is called insanity, I believe, you know, to keep doing something over and over again expecting a different result.”

WC: “And what is the result?”

ML: “Culling is the perpetual solution to the perpetual problem it creates.”

WC: “And what is this 'perpetual problem it creates'?”

ML: “The Compensatory Rebound Effect.”

WC: “Please explain.”

ML: “If you half the deer population by culling, you double the food supply per deer, which doubles or triples the reproductive rate or the does from zero or one fawn per doe to 2 or 3 fawns per doe, which therefore restores the deer population to the previous level, or higher, within one year. Thus the perpetuation of the problem.”

Duane Holweger (R-TN): “Dr. Lee, are you blanket against killing animals?”

ML: “This question, too, is irrelevant. We are talking about the best way to manage deer population. If the non-lethal method yields better results, and costs less, and, yes, it does not spill blood in people's backyards, traumatizing children, and it does not cause innocent people to be shot by arrows, then, yes, I would be in favor of the non-lethal method, and I do.”

DH: “What you are proposing is untried. It is pure conjecture.”

ML: “It is untried because of hunters and prohunting politicians oppose it, like now. And, no, it is not conjecture. Non-lethal population management is also a long standing method.”

DH: “Not that I know of.”

ML: “Not for deer, but for cats and dogs, which is common knowledge. Do we keep the cats and dogs unneutered and cull them to control their population, or do we practice birth control to keep their population under control? If we do this for cats and dogs, and horses I might add, then why not for deer? Because, one, hunters target deer, not cats and dogs and horses, and two, deer culling usually occurs in urban and suburban areas, where the discharge of firearms is prohibited, making them desired hunting ground for bow-hunters. There are only two kinds of shooting when it comes to urban/suburban deer culling – by professional sharpshooters using firearms, which is expensive at hundreds of dollars per deer, or by bow-hunters who usually does it for free. Why for free? Because by intent to bow-hunters culling is in fact urban and suburban bow hunting, and they get to do it for free. The bow-hunting groups are very aggressive in opening bow-hunting-grounds in urban and suburban areas. They would deliberately boost urban deer population by means of food plots near by, then claim deer overpopulation causing ecological damage, then volunteer themselves as saviors of the community. The Trexler case is a very good example."

Dale Sandstrom (D-NJ):  "Dr. Lee, I hear that you have in invention that can render culling obsolete.  Could you explain how it works?"

ML:  "Yes, Senator. My own alternative solution is very simple, so simple I'm amazed that no one has thought about it before, and further that no one has put it to use after my repeated presentations to various city councils and county executives.  The concept i called QUANTITATIVE BUCK/DOE SEPARATION.  The idea is simply that if the bucks and does cannot physically get together, they cannot mate. The objective is to control how many does in the local population that will not be impregnated. Once this number has been determined - by a biologist - then a BUCK/DOE SEPARATOR (BDS) can be constructed to actualize this number.  As a device a BUCK/DOE SEPARATOR cannot be simpler. It is nothing but a small piece of land, ideally half-woods/half-pasture, contained by deer-fencing punctuated by one-way gates. These gates should open inward, be baited on the inside and be just wide enough for a doe and subadults to go through, but not a buck with antlers. Thus, only females can enter and their number can be monitored. Once the desired number is reached, the one-way gates would be locked.  Deer society has it that the females stay put and the males roam around. So, being contained in a fair sized enclosure, say an acre or so, as long as food supplements are provided, would not cause much distress for the does, especially since they were not coerced into the enclosure but entered on their own accord, nor would it damage the environment. The bucks can mate with the remaining does outside of the BDS.  After the rutting season, the BDS can be taken down.  As you can see, this is inexpensive, labor-unintensive, effective and humane."

DS:  "Has this, uh, device of yours been put through field trial in the United States?"

ML:  "No it has not, but it has been tested successfully and in fact implemented at tiger reserves in India for rounding up Chital deer that have spilled out from the reserves to raid surrounding farmland."

DS:  "If it works so well, why has it not been accepted in the United States?"

ML:  "It is because not only are all levels of U.S. government pro-hunting, but often run by hunters."

DS:  "This is a gross exxaggeration and distortion of fact."

ML:  "Not at all.  In your own state, for example, where the hunting population is less than 1% of the entire population, it is written into its Constitution, where Title 13 has it that of the 11 voting members of the Fish and Game Council which determines 'wildlife management' policy, at least 6 must be hunters, and another 3 must be farmers, most of whom being also hunters.  It is hunting policy by hunters, for hunters.  The other 99+% of the population has no say in the matter whatsoever."

And so it went for the better part of an hour.  And while Mark seemed to be having a casual chat over coffee at Starbucks, Joyce was on needles and pins the whole time.  After the hearing she became not certain than ever that left to the Congress, HR-1944 would not have a chance of being passed.  She would have to crank up public passion in supporting a more humane way of treating wildlife.  

"With only 5-6% of the American population hunt, surely, the 94-95% of those who don't would support the bill if called upon," she thought, hopefully, to herself.  "Is this what having faith feels like?  Even if the bill fails, I will still have wage one hell of a public education campaign."

When finally she got home, it was past 10:30 pm.  Though five hours had passed since the hearing, she still felt tight as a drawn bow, and the only way to remove that tension was to release that arrow.  She went straight to run a hot bath.  She avoided looking at herself in the mirror as she disrobed herself.  She was not happy with what aging was doing to her classic 36-24-36 figure once upon a time.  She had not let her husband see her naked for years, and avoided stepping on the bathroom scale for weeks at a time.  They had long stopped sleeping in the same bed, and now, their beds were in different rooms.  "This does not mean that I have no sexuality left in my body, just not a trace of it left in my marriage."  As she was dissolving her tenseness in the steaming water, she touched herself intimately, and gave herself a much needed "release of the arrow". 

Her husband was in Los Angeles on business, and her only child had left home for college, so she padded naked to the kitchen to fix herself a snack and a drink.  

The next morning, after she had gone back to the office, Rebecca Bates picked the lock for the second time in two days, entered her house, and methodically removed three concealed motion-triggered HD video cameras from her bedroom, her kitchen and her bath.  

In the afternoon, Joyce Moran received an email from one E.C.:  "Dear Senator Moran:  Please find attached a video of yourself in the kitchen and the bath.  Not very flattering, but very revealing.  Unless HR-1944 is withdrawn and all related anti-hunting and anti-culling activities brought to an immediate halt, this video will be launched on the internet.  That it would go viral within 24 hours is a given.  Thank you for your cooperation in this matter  - E.C."

Senator Joyce Moran could not stand seeing a single frame of it.