You can have anything you want at Alice's Restaurant.

 

There ain't no such thing as free lunch.

El Paso Herald-Post, 1938.

There really isn't.

For some reason, the concept of "free" lunches and "free" breakfasts has bothered me for decades.  I don't know why, really, but it always has.¹   Generally, it's because I'm well aware that "free", in this context, means the financial cost is passed on to somebody else, and nine times out of ten in my experiences the bearer of the cost does so involuntarily.  

I don't believe the common unthinking populist phrase that "taxation is theft", but in this case, the free meal is really darned close to it.  I've railed here in the past against "free and reduced costs" meals at the local schools, as they aren't free or reduced costs, it's just that property owners pay for negligent parents failing to provide for their kids.

Yes, that's harsh, and that's not what brings me back to this topic, but it's the truth.  I'm not opposed to helping the needy, but here nine times out of ten (that phrase again) some tragic "heroic" single mother is packing Young Waif to school hungry because Dudley Dowrong departed the scene after donating his genetic contribution, and now the people who are responsible are picking up the tab. That's okay on a limited basis, but as soon as those whose occupation is Buying Cotton pick up on it, they become to regard it as a right, and soon in fact it becomes one.^2 3 

Which, again, isn't what brought me back here.

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

Walk right in it's around the back

Just a half a mile from the railroad track

You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant

Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant.

Just like the meanderings in Guthrie's classic, what I’m here to write about isn't school breakfasts, but office lunch's.

For a reason that I'll omit, I suddenly find myself in the role which made an old Denver lawyer friend of mine supremely crabby when he had it assigned to him, and now I see why.  I'm management.

In the new assignment, which snuck up on me, I was instructed I needed to cut expenses that weren't mandated or necessary.  And what I found, of course, is that mandated and necessary are in the eyes of the recipient.  Put another way, one parent's free and reduced lunch is another's absolute Constitutionally enshrined right.

The expense I rapidly cut was sending our runner to buy groceries for the break room.

Oh, I know what you are thinking, coffee, tea, and the like.^4  5

No, I mean real groceries.  Soup, relish, hot peppers and hot sauce.

In the over three decades of my current employment and having worked with lots of professionals, I've noted that there's only been a small handful that actually ever ate their lunch at work.  There are a few, but it isn't many. Staff people who do, and there are a small handful that have, always packed their lunches, or went to one of the downtown shops to buy lunch and brought it back.  Professionals, I'd note, mostly left the office for lunch. Some went home to eat there, often to take care of chores while they were doing it, and some ate downtown.  A few, however, ate in the breakroom every day.

I've never done that. When I was younger, I actually walked home to where I then lived, ate a quick light lunch, and returned to work.  It helped keep me 30 lbs lighter than I now am.  Most of the time now I just don't eat lunch, so if I'm in the office, I'm working. This is against the wise council of my father, who felt that leaving the place of work every day at noon gave you a necessary break.  He ate downtown every day with a small group of his friends.

I admire that.

Anyhow, of the professionals that have eaten lunch in the office over the past three plus decades, there are only two that have acclimated to the company buying them lunch or elements of their lunch.

I don't know how this happened.

Long suffering spouse suggest that it was probably started so that there was food for people in an emergency, and I can see that.  You're trying a case, and it ran long in the morning as Dudley Dowrong was on the stand for a long time, trying to remember if he has six kids by eight women, or eight kids by six women.  So you run back to the office, and you forgot lunch, and don't have time to go buy it.  Have some soup, from the company stores.

Well, I wouldn't.  I hate soup, for which there's no excuse.

My guess is that is how it started, but it expanded somehow.  So for a long time I'll see somebody who hasn't tried a case for eons ordering soup to be picked up by the runner.  And in another, a person who brings a gigantic lunch from home everyday spices it up with relish and condiments he had us pick up, that only he uses.⁶

Quite frankly, this has always pissed me off.

Basically, at that point, you are making every single person who works with and for you buy you lunch.  Yes, it's not a major cost, but over the years that means you've taken hundreds or thousands of dollars in food from your coworkers by fiat.

So, with my new found authority and mandate, I ordered it stopped.

 ...came upon a bar-room full of bad Salon pictures, in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts.

Rudyard Kiping.⁷

It went badly.

Interestingly, the person I thought might complain did not.  The whining from another person was incessant, however.

I'll be frank that I really don't like the passive-aggressive snide type of hostility that some people will exhibit.  I prefer that people know that I'm mad when I'm mad, and they almost certainly do.  In this instance, after days of it, I blew up in front of the front office starting off with "you're pissing me off".

I yielded, however.  People who feel they have the right to impose their lunch menu items back on everyone else now can.

If they dare.

Footnotes:

1.  Without knowing for sure, I wonder if its because people who grew up when I did always had it impressed upon them as children that providing a meal for somebody was a big deal.  If we received lunch at a friend's home, we were always asked if we had thanked the host for doing so.  We were implicitly made to understand that food costs money.  

Moreover, snacking just didn't exist where I lived as a kid.  People didn't have snacks out, ever.  One boyhood friend of mine who is still a close friend had a family that bought 16 oz glass bottles of Pepsi, and the lack of snacks situation was so strong that it always felt like a huge treat to have a bottle of Pepsi there when I was a kid.

2.  I'm not one of those who currently feel that everything is wrong with public education, and indeed public education here is good. But this is one cultural difference that may in fact make a difference.

At least with Catholic schools here, there are those who attend who because parishioners have donated the tuition to make it possible.  I don't know the lunch situation, but I'd wager this is also the case for some food served there.  That's charity, but it's voluntary.  Providing free or reduced cost food in public schools is legally enforced involuntary charity, which the recipients of, at least by way of observation, sometimes come to feel is a right. 

3.  "Buying cotton" is Southern slang for doing nothing.

4.  I almost never drink coffee at the office, and never tea, but these are office staples.  Likewise, a water cooler in a century plus old building makes sense.  And some food, like soda crackers, or something does as well. But food that's used by one person. . . 

5.  Oddly, soda isn't viewed this way.  

Years ago, we had a Pepsi supplied pop machine and, in going through a similar episode, the then managers determined to send it packing.  Restocking it with soda was costing a fortune.

That move was detested by the staff, but not by the professionals. Why?  Probably because the staff drank the soda and the professionals simply didn't.

6.  If you drown your leftovers every noon with buckets of hot sauce and jalapeños, there's something wrong with them in the first place.

7.  What Kipling failed to mention here is that the "free lunch" was packed was salty fare. Heavily salted ham, etc., was set out for the taking, but the one beer lunch accordingly became two or three.

As an aside, a depiction of this is given in Joe Kidd, in which the title character walks into a bar early in the movie and picks up ham, bread and cheese off an open plate.

Related threads:

Do these people actually have a clue how debt works?

Economics, Government, Mid-Week at Work

There is such a thing as a free lunch. Was, Lex Anteinternet: Quiet Quitting? Is it real, and if so, why?

Commentary, Government, The Law of Unintended Consequences, Work

Poster Saturday: Jenny on the job; Eats man sized meals.

1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, Food, Great Depression, Poster Saturday, Posters, The Depression of 1920-1922, The roles of men and women, trends, Women, Work, World War One, World War Two

Oh gasp! How could you be so mean? Well, how could you?

 Agrarianism, Commentary, Distributism, Economics, Government, Localism, Subsidiarity, Taxes, The Law of Unintended Consequences

We're Not Taking Enough Lunch Breaks. Why That's Bad For Business : The Salt : NPR

Commercial life, Daily Living, Food, Mid-Week at Work

March 2, 1824. Gibbons v. Ogden.

The United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gibbons v Ogden, a major case establishing Congress' supremacy over states, something that will nonetheless be challenged from time to time today by far right state politicians.

GIBBONS v. OGDEN

22 U.S. 1 (1824)

March 2, 1824

APPEAL from the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors of the State of New-York. Aaron Ogden filed his bill in the Court of Chancery of that State, against Thomas Gibbons, setting forth the several acts of the Legislature thereof, enacted for the purpose of securing to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton, the exclusive navigation of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that State, with boats moved by fire or steam, for a term of years which has not yet expired; and authorizing the Chancellor to award an injunction, restraining any person whatever from navigating those waters with boats of that description. The bill stated an assignment from Livingston and Fulton to one John R. Livingston, and from him to the complainant, Ogden, of the right to navigate the waters between Elizabethtown, and other places in New-Jersey, and the city of New-York; and that Gibbons, the defendant below, was in possession of two steam boats, called the Stoudinger and the Bellona, which were actually employed in running between New-York and Elizabethtown, in violation of the exclusive privilege conferred on the complainant, and praying an injunction to restrain the said Gibbons from using the said boats, or any other propelled by fire or steam, in navigating the waters within the territory of New-York. The injunction having been awarded, the answer of Gibbons was filed; in which he stated, that the boats employed by him were duly enrolled and licensed, to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade, under the act of Congress, passed the 18th of February, 1793, entitled, 'An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same.' And the defendant insisted on his right, in virtue of such licenses, to navigate the waters between Elizabethtown and the city of New-York, the said acts of the Legislature of the State of New-York to the contrary notwithstanding. At the hearing, the Chancellor perpetuated the injunction, being of the opinion, that the said acts were not repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, and were valid. This decree was affirmed in the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, which is the highest Court of law and equity in the State, before which the cause could be carried, and it was thereupon brought to this Court by appeal....

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court, and, after stating the case, proceeded as follows:

The appellant contends that this decree is erroneous, because the laws which purport to give the exclusive privilege it sustains, are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.

They are said to be repugnant--

1st. To that clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce.

2d. To that which authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

This instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said, that these powers ought to be construed strictly. But why ought they to be so construed? Is there one sentence in the constitution which gives countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated powers, that which grants, expressly, the means for carrying all others into execution, Congress is authorized 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper' for the purpose. But this limitation on the means which may be used, is not extended to the powers which are conferred; nor is there one sentence in the constitution, which has been pointed out by the gentlemen of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that prescribes this rule. We do not, therefore, think ourselves justified in adopting it.... As men, whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said....

The words are, 'Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.'

The subject to be regulated is commerce; and our constitution being, as was aptly said at the bar, one of enumeration, and not of definition, to ascertain the extent of the power, it becomes necessary to settle the meaning of the word. The counsel for the appellee would limit it to traffic, to buying and selling, or the interchange of commodities, and do not admit that it comprehends navigation. This would restrict a general term, applicable to many objects, to one of its significations. Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations, which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals, in the actual employment of buying and selling, or of barter....

The subject to which the power is next applied, is to commerce 'among the several States.' The word 'among' means intermingled with. A thing which is among others, is intermingled with them. Commerce among the States, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior.

It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

Comprehensive as the word 'among' is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a State, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose; and the enumeration of the particular classes of commerce, to which the power was to be extended, would not have been made, had the intention been to extend the power to every description.... The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.

We are now arrived at the inquiry-What is this power?

It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.... The power of Congress, then, comprehends navigation, within the limits of every State in the Union; so far as that navigation may be, in any manner, connected with 'commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, or with the Indian tribes.' It may, of consequence, pass the jurisdictional line of New-York, and act upon the very waters to which the prohibition now under consideration applies....

In argument, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act, law. The appropriate inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it....

This act demonstrates the opinion of Congress, that steam boats may be enrolled and licensed, in common with vessels using sails. They are, of course, entitled to the same privileges, and can no more be restrained from navigating waters, and entering ports which are free to such vessels, than if they were wafted on their voyage by the winds, instead of being propelled by the agency of fire. The one element may be as legitimately used as the other, for every commercial purpose authorized by the laws of the Union; and the act of a State inhibiting the use of either to any vessel having a license under the act of Congress, comes, we think, in direct collision with that act.

As this decides the cause, it is unnecessary to enter in an examination of that part of the constitution which empowers Congress to promote the progress of science and the useful arts....

Powerful and ingenious minds, taking, as postulates, that the powers expressly granted to the government of the Union, are to be contracted by construction, into the narrowest possible compass, and that the original powers of the States are retained, if any possible construction will retain them, may, by a course of well digested, but refined and metaphysical reasoning, founded on these premises, explain away the constitution of our country, and leave it, a magnificent structure, indeed, to look at, but totally unfit for use. They may so entangle and perplex the understanding, as to obscure principles, which were before thought quite plain, and induce doubts where, if the mind were to pursue its own course, none would be perceived. In such a case, it is peculiarly necessary to recur to safe and fundamental principles to sustain those principles, and when sustained, to make them the tests of the arguments to be examined.

Japanese Computer Commercial (brand name: Mouse)

Some things are too strange not to post.

The Olympic Pickup Advertisements. Walter and the Lightening.

There's been two really great television advertisements featuring pickups recently.

This is one of them.

Okay, first off, I'm not in the market for a new pickup.  Yes, my old Dodge 1 ton is. . . well it's old.  And  yes. . . it's rusting. But they don't make standard transmissions for sale in the US anymore, and I'm not in the market for an automatic transmission vehicle.

And for that matter, my D1500 has less than 200,000 miles on it, and it's a diesel.  So it has a lot of life left in it.  Probably as much life as I have left in me, so it'll do.

But this is a neat ad, it's really cool.

And Walter is great.

Frankly, the highly developed tailgate is great too.  I don't know why something like that wasn't thought of years ago, but I'll really give General Motors credit for some excellent recent developments like this.  Another is the steps on the side of the box, and in the bumper. That was, quite simply, a great idea.

Here's the other one:

This F150 advertisement is completely different.  The Chloe Zhoa directed commercial is also brilliant, and it hits the "electric vehicles will never be useful here" crowed right where they live.

Oh yes, they will be.

Indeed, the theme, Ford's continuity with its past, modern electric vehicles as a continuation of the best of Ford's historic vehicles, and a deeply American theme (aging rancher and his younger adult daughter) is brilliant.

Indeed, the Ford F150 Lightening stands to probably given the Chevrolet in which Walter has been riding more than a run for its money.

Prior electric vehicles have sometimes been presented as "the future is here, you dolt, buy one", which isn't a very effective marketing strategy except for people who have already placed an order for iphone72 and Windows 35.  

Ford's ad isn't threatening.

Southern Rockies Nature Blog: Colorado State Parks Free on Friday, Nov. 29th

Southern Rockies Nature Blog: Colorado State Parks Free on Friday, Nov. 29th: News release from Colorado Parks & Wildlife DENVER- Reclaim Nov. 29 by avoiding the shopping hysteria and getting outside for a breat...

Working With Animals

I've tried to get this topic rolling here a couple of times, without much luck (as I'm the only one who stops in here). None the less, here's another go at it:

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Working with Animal;s a Census and a Poll

If you can log in at SMH, please post an answer. If not, think about giving one here!

My prior efforts here:


I'm taking a bit of a poll, out of curiosity. It's decidedly unscientific, of course. Anyhow, of those people who stop in here (mostly just me, of course) how many have been in a career where they worked with animals.

If you have not, and most people will have not, how far back, if you know, do you have to go to find a person in your family who had a job working with animals. Any kind of job, farmer, rancher, artilleryman, whatever.

Epilogue:

 Draft horses and youth:

400714_555211947850572_615600276_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 714 × 960 pixels) - Scaled (90%)

Hay Wagon:

 406792_526087687429665_1981292773_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 960 × 739 pixels) - Scaled (80%)

Big Log:

549409_527898253915275_1025268720_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 586 × 432 pixels)

Harvesting Wheat:

531095_523488837689550_1468435760_n.jpg (JPEG Image, 960 × 714 pixels) - Scaled (83%)

Nice one of boy with pump handle and thirsty, or perhaps curious, cows:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/942918_10151672452323156_1625712334_n.jpg

Nice photo showing urban draft horses.  Draft horses were a huge segment of the horse population up until mid 20th Century, with some railroads owning enormous numbers for in city freighting.  Urban drafts dominated the heavy horse market.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/575622_562252533813180_918873072_n.jpg

The Manitoba Cartage & Warehousing Co. was extensively engaged in agriculture and the breeding of Clydesdale horses. This is their award winning six horse hitch in Toronto in 1929. Photo by Cook and Gormley.

Added May 30, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Epilogue 2.

Recently there's been some queries about the procurement of horses by the various armies early in World War One.  It's popularly imagined that World War One was the end of the military horse era, but it wasn't.  Millions of horses were used in the war, particularly in the role of draft animals for transport and artillery, and the procurement of horses was a really big deal.

Anyhow, while this thread doesn't really deal with the topic, directly, of the military use of horses and World War One is long enough ago now that darned near everyone who served in it has passed on, there's some interesting topics that this raises, that I'm linking in here

Mobilizing the Horses, 1914.

Draft Remount Training.

British Remounts.

Women and remount training, WWI.

Training Remounts, 1922.

Date Added:  July 29, 2013.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Epilogue 3

I was a participant in a conversation the other day when somebody volunteered an opinion I hadn't thought of, specifically regarding the practice of law.  That this would end up being posted here, as a comment, I wouldn't have anticipated, but it was an interesting observation.

The specific observation was that the person making the query noted that it must have been enjoyable for some circuit riding lawyers of old to practice because of they rode.  That's an interesting observation.  It is true that American lawyers were sort of a mounted profession at one time, riding the circuit from town to town.  At least John Adams wrote of that in sort of romantic terms. Adams liked horses and he liked riding the circuit. He actually bought his last horse, to train, while he was in his 80s.

I'm sure that not everyone who rode a circuit liked it, but what that does cause me to wonder about is the extent to which everyday life for many people once involved animals, and now does not.  Now it involves pets for many people, but that's the note same thing.  The circuit riding lawyers horse, the ice man's draft horse, and so on were working companions.  I wonder if we haven't lost something, now that they're gone?

Epilogue 4

I've recently added a poll on this topic, for those who might find it interesting, now that there's a poll feature. 

Epilogue 5

  

 City of Houston, mounted police.

Epilogue 6

Recently this topic came up on the World War Two list in the context of armies that used mounted forces during World War Two, which is actually all of them.  This is a misunderstood part of the history of the Second World War, but all armies used horses to greater or lessor degrees.  In response that discussion, the bulk of which I left out, I noted this minor item in regards to the Marines on Okinawa (in addition to a lot of other items);

"Okinawa into service to a very limited extent, showing I guess how that generation contained people who retained equine knowledge."

That brought this response from another poster:

Pat,

That's an interesting point...how widespread would horse-knowledge be among Americans in say 1940? I would guess that a lot of farm life was still dictated by animal power, even though tractors (I am assuming here) had made inroads to American farm since the Model T. I have seen video of Model T's being used in all manners on a farm (using the tires to drive farm equipment via a belt for example).

I replied:

I'll babble on a bit as this is one of my favorite topics.  Indeed, I can probably link in some old SMH threads on this very topic.

Automobiles actually hit the US like a storm starting just prior to World War One.   The Model T was truly revolutionary as it was so widely affordable.  Still, horses remained a much more common means of transportation and work "horsepower" than people imagine today.

Going back to prior to the Great War, the largest single owners of horses in the US and Canada were the railroads.  Railroads had huge numbers of heavy draft horses, and their needs were so predominant that they dominated the draft horse market.  People today like to imagine that heavy drafts were "farm" horses, but they were only farm horses as farmers bread them for sale to draft users in the cities, i.e., railroads and local transportation haulers.  Farmers themselves preferred "chunks", a smaller type of draft animal, but the numbers really began to decline in that category in the early 20th Century.  Anyhow, huge numbers of horses were actually maintained in towns by commercial users.

By WWI local haulers had started to switch to trucks, but horses remained very common, and they continued to remain very common on in to the 1920s.  Horse use in agriculture also remained very common, even with small gasoline engine tractors (by our standards today) making real inroads.

The Great Depression slowed rural mechanization down a great deal, and many farmers who would have switched to tractors chose not to or could not afford to during the 1930s, so horses hung on in farming in a major way.  In local commercial transportation horses greatly declined in the 1930s, but they did not disappear.  You can still find horses in common use for some sorts of urban hauling.  Both my parents, for example, could recall ice being delivered for domestic use by a man who came with a horse drawn wagon.  I have a photo from the 1940s of the City of Montreal clearing snow with a horse drawn snow plow, taken by my mother.

It was really the immediate post war period that picked back up the pace of mechanization in agriculture and eliminated the urban hauling with finality.  There were still regular farmers who used horse or mules as late as the 1950s, but they were very much on the decline.  A friend of mine whose father I knew fairly well once showed me a photo taken of him using the family's mules for the very last time, the summer he reported for basic training during the Korean War.  With his father dead, and with his leaving for the Army, his mothers and brother decided that the time had come for a tractor.

On the other hand, one additional thing to keep in mind is that most town and city dwellers in the US hadn't been horse users for a very long time.  Even in the late 19th Century, when horses were common for all uses, people in towns largely did not use them.  Just too hard to keep in town.  Rural people used them, but those who lived inside a town limit tended not to, as it just wasn't practical to keep one.  Only the wealthy could afford to do so. So, for that reason, it was really the bicycle not the automobile, that was seen at first as a real revolution in transportation for the common man.

So, I guess to answer the question a little more directly, with a much larger percentage of our population living on farms (or ranches, which still use horses today), and with some ongoing urban use, horse familiarity would have been much higher than it is today, but at the same point in time, it would not have been common knowledge amongst most troops either.

  But it was this reply by another participant I wanted to note:

My dad's and mom's families' farms in Missouri still used horses through WWII. They didn't get tractors until well after the war.

Epilogue 7.

Our comments on Horsepower, the equine age.

Epilogue 8

Just the news story my 53 year old self wants to read on a Sunday morning prior to a really busy Monday morning.

RED LODGE, Mont. — Blowing up dead animals was “just part of the deal” in the 16 seasons Nolan Melin worked as a backcountry horse packer and trail crew member for the Forest Service.

“You’ve got to get rid of them,” he said matter-of-factly about a pretty unusual occurrence.

Otherwise, a dead horse or mule might attract bears to a wilderness trail, which is dangerous for humans and the bears.

Horse packing is a skill few people possess in this digital, mechanized age. The profession harkens back to a simpler time when horsepower actually involved a real horse.

In the Forest Service’s Region 1, which encompasses 25 million acres spread across five states, there are only eight full-time horse packers with another 25 who include that specialty in their other duties. So that made Melin a rare breed.

Traute Parrie, retired Beartooth District ranger, said, “When I got to the Beartooth District ranger job, it was some combination of humbling and thrilling to realize I’d landed on a district where we still had a permanent packer, a rare thing these days. It spoke to the values that this district holds important.”

The reality is that it’s also a punishing profession — lifting heavy loads as well as dealing with horses and mules that sometime possess a mind of their own. Most horse packers have several tales about a wild blow up, when animals bucked loose and took off for points unknown.

“Mules are unforgiving if you don’t understand them,” Melin said. “I love those old mules, but they knew who was boss and who they could walk over.”

Worn out at the age of 36, after years of heavy lifting and being thrown from his mount a few times, Melin is stepping down from his job as packer for the Beartooth Ranger District to work in Miles City, Montana. The new job will be closer to his hometown. He grew up on a ranch outside of Ashland.

Different people react differently to a story like this.  I sent it around to a collection of friends and an older one, perhaps now approaching 70, simply lamented how this news story reports the subject as broken down at 36.  There's something to that.  But, for a person who loves the outdoors but who spends every day in offices, imaging an occupation outdoors with horses and mules can't help but seem, well, romantic.

March 16, 2017

Epilogue 9



I ran this earlier this week and then considered that it really ought to be added to this thread.

I know that the German Army, as well as the Austrian army, retained horses and mules in a mountain troop role.  And for that matter I know why they do, so this story isn't a surprise to me.

I have to admit that from the vantage point of my office window or the deposition hall, I have to wonder if I were German or Austrian I would have opted for something like this rather than the direction I took.  That's easy to say, after all, as the probable answer is probably not, given as I'm not working for the Forest Service or the Game & Fish, etc.

Still, it's hard, at least for those of us with a certain mindset, not to look at scenes like this and be a bit envious, something I'm sure that surprises others.

FWIW, horses in a military role and rural police setting role remain highly viable in certain settings are are undoubtedly underused, rather than underused.

February 20, 2019