Showing posts with label Killetarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Killetarianism. Show all posts

Saturday, June 19, 2021

I don't like being upset with the Wyoming Game & Fish Department but. . .

I am.


Again.

The department changed its fairly horrible license application system to one that has the appearance of being somewhat better earlier this year.  A couple of months ago, I went to apply for limited draw licenses and had to register for the new system. I then applied for my licenses.

When I did, it had the feel that something didn't work right, but I chalked that up to paranoia about the old site, which was pretty glitchy.  I went along on my way happy I'd complied well before the due date for applications.

Later, I helped set up the new site for the kids and helped them apply.

Well, the draw results came out on Thursday and sure enough, the system has me not applying for anything.

I haven't drawn an antelope license or a limited deer or elk for two years running. The G&F insists on giving out more licenses to out of staters than any other Western state, which certainly doesn't help that at all.  And now their website has screwed me.

As a subsistence hunter, I'm angry.  Over the past two, now three, years I haven't been able to draw a license in the state I'm native to.  For two years running I've been harassed by Game Wardens while bird hunting as I note the routes into places better than they do. Both of those wardens are imports from out of state, the latter one from California, in a job that used to go to people who had grown up in a wild environment. The first one, in fairness, apologized for being wrong and the second one eventually backed down, but he also acted like a big city cop.  He ought to be sent packing back to California where he's from.

Somehow government entities manage to have bad websites fairly frequently. There are exceptions. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Commissions is excellent.  The Game and Fish site, on the other hand, has always been bad. They now force you to use it, however.

Well, even though its tilting at windmills, I tried to call. . . two days running. The phone was off the hook.

I probably wasn't the only one with a problem.

Related threads:

The Agrarian's Lament: A Tribune op ed and some thoughts on outfitters and locals.




Saturday, April 10, 2021

The Agrarian's Lament: A Tribune op ed and some thoughts on outfitters and locals.

 A Tribune op ed and some thoughts on outfitters and locals.

April 05, 2021

We recently ran the item below.

The Agrarian's Lament: Two Hunting Season Reflections

A column appears in the Tribune today, by an outfitter, congratulating the Legislators involved in this matter (voting the bill down) for their thoughtfulness.  Interested folks can find it here:

Outfitters: Senators deserve our thanks for taking a thoughtful approach

The argument basically is the one I noted.  The bill would have reduced, the way the op-ed termed it, "hunter tourists" by 50%.  And that's true.

That doesn't rise to the level a good argument in my view. After all, legalization of marihuana was subject to the same pocket book interest. And Colorado was, and probably still is, getting stoner tourists. But that is the way that a lot of people tend to look at any question, and this question in particular.

The bill claims the Senators were verbally attacked, which if true is inexcusable, but which probably does show the deep seated cultural feelings on this issue here in this state.  Natives, of which I am one, tend not to be too sympathetic to this argument.

Why would that be?

It's  not, by and large, that most natives and long time residents are opposed to people keeping their jobs and we generally don't want to hurt the owners of restaurants and hotels and the like.   And we're keen on sporting goods stores. So none of that is it.

What is it, is being locked out.

Hunters and fishermen have sort on odd admiration/aggravation relationship with farmers and ranchers (quite a few of which, we should note, are hunters also).  And outfitters have made this worse.  It has to do with access to land.

Now, I'm not going to wax too romantic about this and there's always been places that hunters and fishermen, and from here out we'll just refer to both as "hunters" as fishermen are simply fish hunters, could not go.  But they were much fewer before outfitting became a big business in the state.  

That wasn't until the 1980s and the impact wasn't immediately felt. But by the 90s it was.  Outfitters were part, but not all, of that.

Indeed, out of state land ownership was also a big part of that.  Rich people would buy ranches in Wyoming and lock them up, if they could, whereas the same lands before had been ones of ready access for hunters.  Outfitters, however, came in and bought the hunting access, often locking up public lands that were landlocked by private lands at the same time.

Ranchers and farmers of course participated in this for a variety of reasons, simple economics being one but also because that often meant that they didn't have to deal with the minority of hunters who were some sort of a problem to them.  The outfitters guided their clients and hence controlled them.  

The entire development has impacted the local land culture a lot.  Access to private lands is harder to come by than it once was.  Given that, local hunters are unlikely to love outfitters if they've been pushed off of their former hunting lands.

The Game & Fish, for its part, has tried to redress this and has done so fairly successfully by effectively becoming sort of an outfitter, sort of, itself, by buying access to hunting lands under various agreements with landowners. That's a great program that I highly encourage, but of course it still isn't going to engender love by the locals for outfitters.

With only so much wildlife to go around, and so many places that it can be found, reserving licenses for out of state hunters, while generally supported by the locals, loses some of its appeal when the argument fails to ignore the impact of what outfitting has helped to create in the state.  

It's a classic agrarian conflict.

Indeed, it very closely replicates the agrarian conflict that took place in the 30 years following the Civil War in the South, to some extent, a conflict that came near to violence on multiple occasions.  That won't occur here, but that local hunters will back such bills if they can, and that the outfitting industry will oppose them, should be no surprise.

All of which gets back, in some ways, to my earlier arguments about creating a subsistence hunting license in the state, but that's not seemingly too likely to happen any time soon, and if it did, chances are that those with a trophy focus, and outfitters, might oppose that.  Or might not.

Saturday, April 3, 2021

Blog Mirror: Two Hunting Season Reflections

Two Hunting Season Reflections



I went out to the Game & Fish this week as I didn't quite grasp the turkey regulations.

It was my fault, I just wasn't reading them correctly.  The reason for that, in part, was an element of hypervigilance on my part due to recent in the field discussions I've had with young game wardens, and also being acclimated to the regulations the way that they were, rather than the way they currently are.

Anyhow, the pleasant surprise is that there are now so many turkeys in Wyoming that you can get two or even three licenses. The bad news is that the extra licenses were already all taken.  Indeed, that surprised the very helpful warden who was helping me, as he had hoped to get an extra tag himself.

I meant to get around to checking this a couple of weeks ago, but I didn't as I was too busy.  

I also meant, fwiw, to apply for a buffalo license, the deadline for which was yesterday, but I forgot to do so.  I tend to do that.

In discussing the turkey licenes with the Game Warden, I noted that I should have expected this as it seems that COVID 19 is causing people to get outdoors.  He said that was really true and that this year they'd seen a record number of out of state big game licenses applied for. Far more, by a huge margin, than ever before.

That likely will mean the same for in state licenses as well.

This gets back to this bill in the Wyoming legislature, and my earlier comments on it:

March 3, 2021

Sometimes you learn of these bills in surprising ways.


A bill has been introduced and advanced in the legislature which seeks to adjust the percentages of licenses between natives and out of staters.  I'm sure I wasn't in the intended audience, as I'm an instater.

It reads:

 

 

SENATE FILE NO. SF0103

 

 

Resident and nonresident hunting license issuance and fees.

 

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Hicks, Kolb, McKeown and Schuler and Representative(s) Burkhart, Harshman, Henderson, Laursen, Stith, Styvar and Wharff

 

 

A BILL

 

for

 

AN ACT relating to game and fish; modifying provisions governing resident and nonresident hunters; modifying resident and nonresident license reservations; increasing resident and nonresident fees as specified; repealing nonresident license reservation requirements for elk, deer and antelope; making a conforming amendment; and providing for an effective date.

 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

 

Section 1.  W.S. 231703(e), 232101(e), (j)(intro), (xv), (xvii), (xix), (xxi), (xxiii), (xxv), (xxvii), (xxix), (xxxi), (xxxiii), (xxxviii), (xxxix) and (k) and 232107(c)(intro) and (e) are amended to read:

 

231703.  Limitation of number of certain licenses; reservation of certain licenses; reservation of certain unused licenses.

 

(e)  The commission shall reserve eighty percent (80%) of the moose and seventyfive percent (75%) of the ram and ewe and lamb bighorn sheep, mountain goat not less than ninety percent (90%) of the limited quota big game animal, wild bison and grizzly bear licenses to be issued in any one (1) year for resident hunters in the initial license drawings.  In any hunt area with less than ten (10) licenses available, the commission shall not issue any licenses to nonresident hunters under this subsection. The commission shall determine the allocation of resident and nonresident mountain lion harvest.

 

232101.  Fees; restrictions; nonresident application fee; nonresident licenses; verification of residency required.

 

(e)  Resident and nonresident license applicants shall pay an application fee in an amount specified by this subsection upon submission of an application for purchase of any limited quota drawing for big or trophy game license or wild bison license.  The resident application fee shall be five dollars ($5.00) seven dollars ($7.00) and the nonresident application fee shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00) seventeen dollars ($17.00). The application fee is in addition to the fees prescribed by subsections (f) and (j) of this section and by W.S. 232107 and shall be payable to the department either directly or through an authorized selling agent of the department. At the beginning of each month, the commission shall set aside all of the fees collected during calendar year 1980 and not to exceed twentyfive percent (25%) of the fees collected thereafter pursuant to this subsection to establish and maintain a working balance of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00), to compensate owners or lessees of property damaged by game animals and game birds.

 

(j)  Subject to W.S. 232101(f), 231705(e) and the applicable fee under W.S. 231701, the following hunting licenses and tags may be purchased for the fee indicated and subject to the limitations provided:

 

(xv)  Nonresident deer license; one (1) deer

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372.00 655.00

 

(xvii)  Nonresident youth deer license; one (1) deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  110.00 150.00

 

(xix)  Nonresident elk license; one (1) elk, fishing privileges . . . . . . . . . . . .  690.00 1,100.00

 

(xxi)  Nonresident youth elk license; one (1) elk, fishing privileges . . . . . . . . . . . 275.00 300.00

 

(xxiii)  Nonresident bighorn sheep license; one (1) bighorn sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,318.00 3,000.00

 

(xxv)  Nonresident mountain goat license; one (1) mountain goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,160.00 2,750.00

 

(xxvii)  Nonresident moose license; one (1) moose

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,980.00 2,750.00

 

(xxix)  Nonresident grizzly bear license; one (1) grizzly bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6,000.00 7,500.00

 

(xxxi)  Nonresident antelope license; one (1) antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  324.00 600.00

 

(xxxiii)  Nonresident youth antelope license; one (1) antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  110.00 125.00

 

(xxxviii)  Resident turkey license .  14.00 20.00

 

(xxxix)  Nonresident turkey license . 72.00 75.00

 

(k)  Any resident qualified to purchase a moose or ram big horn sheep hunting license under subsection (j) of this section may pay a fee of seven dollars ($7.00) ten dollars ($10.00) in lieu of applying for a moose or ram big horn sheep hunting license.  Payment of the fee for a particular species under this subsection shall authorize the person to accumulate points under W.S. 231703(b) for that year in the same manner as if he had unsuccessfully applied for a hunting license for that species. Payment of the fee shall be made in compliance with application dates.

 

232107.  Wild bison licenses.

 

(c)  Subject to the limitations imposed by W.S. 231703(e), the commission shall promulgate reasonable rules and regulations regulating wild bison licenses and the management of wild bison.  The rules shall provide for:

 

(e)  A resident applicant shall pay a license fee of four hundred twelve dollars ($412.00) for a license to harvest any wild bison or two hundred fiftyeight dollars ($258.00) for a license to harvest a female or calf wild bison and shall pay the fee required by W.S. 232101(e).  A nonresident applicant shall pay a license fee of four thousand four hundred dollars ($4,400.00) six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) for a license to harvest any wild bison or two thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($2,750.00) for a license to harvest a female or calf wild bison and shall pay the fee required by W.S. 232101(e). The fee charged under W.S. 231701 shall be in addition to the fee imposed under this subsection.

 

Section 2.  W.S. 232101(f) is repealed.

 

Section 3.  This act is effective January 1, 2022.

 

(END)

As can be seen, it dramatically increases the costs of out of state licenses, in some categories as well.

Well so be it.

I learned of this bill when an outfitter that I really don't know except by business name sent an email "alert" to my email on this, noting that it would supposedly destroy my ability to hunt in Wyoming, by which it meant a state that it though that I, as a visitor living elsewhere, would only be visiting to hunt, and wouldn't be able to.

This taps into a long running slow burn cultural battle in the state that really began in the 1970s.  Prior to that time outfitting wasn't really a statewide business and may not have been a full time business of any category at all.  In that timeframe, however, there was an effort basically to attempt to stabilize the business, more or less at their request, by requiring they be hired in certain areas for those who came from out of state.  

Since that time, the business has really grown and there have been real efforts to directly aid them, including even granting them some licenses to be sold directly.  For native Wyomingites this has been a huge issue as natives don't use guides at all and the feeling is that these efforts directly impinge on a sort of native right.  This feeling has increased as some outfitters have locked up ranch lands in deals which reserve the lands for the outfitters clients.  There's various arguments on this on both side, some of which they will not commit to in print but will openly voice.  The printed one, form the outfitters, is that out of state hunters bring in a lot of revenue to the state.

For native hunters the counter is that they largely don't care.  They don't benefit economically from it, and indeed, the opposite is true in that they loose opportunities to hunt. The past few years this loss has been keenly felt as licenses that were once easy to get now no longer are.  Indeed, I haven't drawn an antelope license for two years running at this time.

With an influx of outdoorsmen of all types due to the Coronavirus pandemic, this has been all the more the case.

An interesting aspect of this bill is the absence of sponsoring names that appear on the "hot" topics this year.

On other matters, a bill a bill has advanced allowing the holders of real property to remove racially restrictive covenants from their deeds.

Such restrictions are void in any event, so this bill simply allows such restrictions to be officially removed.  As few people read their deeds and as people likely generally don't repeat the illegal

I don't know why the bill failed, but I'd really hoped it would pass.

Later I heard that Wyoming tends to be unique in regard to out of state licenses in holding more for out of states than other states.

I don't know why the bill failed, but I'd really hoped it would pass.

Later I heard that Wyoming tends to be unique in regard to out of state licenses in holding more for out of states than other states.  I don't know why we do this, although I do know that some years ago an asshole who lived out of state sued the state under the Equal Protection Clause claiming that the Game & Fish should make no distinction between in state and out of state licenses. That suit failed, and I hope that his lawyer was charging that guy something like $5,000/hour and he went bankrupt, but I've wondered if the G&F has been a bit gun shy since that time about adjusting these numbers. After all, they've withstood the test of litigation, so I'd get that.

If that is it, I'd yield to their considerations of those factors.

On the other hand, a common argument has to do with the dollars that out of states bring in for hunting, fishing and everything else they come in for.

Wyoming has undoubtedly been in the economic dumps for some time, due to the state's reliance on fossil fuel extraction for income.  Everybody knows this, but nobody is willing to do anything much about it, yet.  There are things that could be done.  We have other raw products, beef, wool, etc., we produce, but we don't bother to finish them as we prefer to live like a colony. . . oh wait, that's not it.  We don't do that as we're used to the petrol and coal bucks and can't really grasp anything else, even though we didn't always rely on those things.  We had sheep, cattle, wheat, etc., before we ever had oil and coal in a marketable fashion, and we have uranium right now in addition to the fossil fuels. We're not, however, going to look at state sponsored meat packing plants, wool processing plants, or nuclear power, and if we started to somebody, probably somebody from somewhere else, would start decrying a "slide into socialism".  So we're going to wait for things to get really bad.

In the meantime we're going to make reference to tourist dollars, such as in this instance.  This rings the money in, the argument goes.  And I suppose it does.

But money isn't everything and to the extent changing these percentages would impact things I doubt it would do so in a very harmful way.

Outfitters, as noted, were very much against this bill, but here too we have to consider the oddities of this.  Right now, in order to go on the public land hunting in some areas of the state you need an outfitter by law. This is the case, as a friend of mine pointed out, even if I am from Alaska and hunt in the wilderness all the time.  And its also the case if I come into the state to fish, rather than hunt, or to hike.  The argument that out of state hunters will get lost is a dog that doesn't hunt, and we know that. The law is just a way to help guaranty employment for outfitters.

Outfitting used to be a part time job done mostly by guys whose full time jobs allowed them to have the fall off, which is still partially true.  And it used to be a part time job for ranchers.  Now, however, outfitters often hire out of state guides whose familiarity with the wilderness is probably not that much better, in real terms, than the people they're guiding from time to time.  Some time ago, for instance, I spoke to a guide who was here for the season from Tennessee.  Not exactly the rough Wyoming cowboy spending the winter as a guide as people might imagine, before he starts riding the grub line.  Given that, I don't think outfitters would really be that hurt by a change in the law, and I really don't care if out of state guides are hurt. They can stay in Tennessee for all I care.  Local outfitters, if they're busy enough to hire Tennesseans, can decline to do so and take care of their business themselves.  That may sound callous, but I don't mean for it to be, and I think they'd be okay, money wise.

Which also gets back to this.  In something like this there's an entire set of competitive interest over a limited resource.  That resource, it seems to me, should be scaled towards residents and more than that, scaled towards subsistence.

Sort of a combination of Subsidiarity and Field to Table, if you will.

I'm serious about that.  I'm not going to argue that the general public has a right to dictate what ever square inch of private property is used for, but the table is a basic.  At the end of the day, hunting is for food, and food directly acquired is acquired in the best way possible.  I don't begrudge somebody from far away coming to hunt in Wyoming, but we should be honest.  First of all, in spite of what people may think, there are hunting opportunities in every state in the United States. Even Hawaii has big game hunting.  There's nothing wrong with crossing state lines to hunt, but if you are trophy hunting in another state chances are high that the Chile con Carne aspect of it is probably not what took you there.  

Again, that's fine, but the Chile con Carne hunting is something deeper and more meaningful.  It really ought to be the thing that controls.



Saturday, March 13, 2021

A Stream

Some mental meanderings, if you will.

ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία*

1 Timothy.

I have to admit that I'm disappointed by the failure of Senate File 103, the bill that would have increased the number of hunting licenses reserved for for in state hunters.   That is, of course, open to skeptical retort as I'm an instate hunter, and I would have potentially benefitted from that.

But more than that, as I've noted here before, I'm basically a subsistence hunter and I'm serious about it.  I'm not a "head hunter".  Indeed, I don't personally grasp the amount of money that people will spend to hunt out of state, but I suppose that its based on retaining a connection with the wild they've lost through urbanization.  Maybe that is what makes sense of it.  What I think would make more sense, personally, is to hunt locally, and if that's too expensive, they should focus their efforts accordingly to make it less so.  But because they don't, and because their expenditures in Wyoming are part of the economy, we cater to that and the bill didn't pass. 

Setting aside the tourist dollars aspect of it, and just the monetary and subsistence aspect of it, this is one of those putting values over money type of judgments that seems to be lacking a lot in the modern world, and indeed, in fairness, is generally lacking in any one era.  The point of outfitters and the opponents of the bill in the legislature is that outfitting and out of state hunting is a business in the state, it brings dollars into the state, and we shouldn't hurt business.  And there's a lot to be sympathetic about in that argument, particularly as the state is really hurting for cash. But there's philosophical reasons to set monetary concerns aside on some things.  There are things that we should value over money in ways that are hard to define as they're all intellectual.

Also, pure monetary arguments can be really bad ones, and generally almost every really awful idea that has made the world worse has some economic aspect to it.  Henry VIII gained support fraudulently usurping Papal authority in the English church not so much by brilliant theological arguments, which were lacking for his campaign, but by driving monks out of monasteries and handing them over to his supporters.  It was devastating in every way and reverberates through society today, but when you get right down to it, temporal monetary considerations trumped the concerns stretching out to eternity.  Money often wins.

Still, it shouldn't.


Monetary considerations played into a legislative argument this past week on another topic.  Not that this is surprise, that plays into a lot of arguments in Cheyenne.  This one was about marijuana.  There's a bill to legalize it and regulate it basically like alcohol.  "The state would generate a lot of money from taxing it" came up as an argument.

That's true, but the state would also generate a lot of money by legalizing heroin and taxing it, or legalizing prostitution and taxing that.  You get the point.  Things aren't made illegal because they have a negative taxation aspect to them.

Indeed, most of the "we'll tax it" type of arguments for legalizing something that has as association with vice are not well thought out anyhow, as rarely does anyone balance the taxation against the costs the vice creates.  Nobody, that is, figures out how much caring for those who are permanently wasted on dope will cost, and contrary to what people assert, that will happen.

When I was a National Guardsmen I ran into one of my former soldiers on the street, after he was discharged.  He asked what I thought he should do as he was so badly addicted to marijuana he couldn't get off of it.  I guess it was nice to be asked, but still in my 20s, even as an NCO, I didn't really know what to tell him.  I offered some advice, but I don't recall what it was.  More recently somebody I know related to me how one of their daughters had gone to school, dropped out, and came home a wreck as she was addicted to it and in a state of severe depression.  They got her off of it, but she's now working in a hopelessly low paying occupation and likely will live a really marginal life.

I don't see a reason to encourage any more stupefaction of our society than we already have.  If it were up to me, I wouldn't have repealed prohibition in the 1930s, and I'm not a teetotaler.  

I know why we do these things, however.  We've built a world that we don't like much, and its easier to spend our cash blotting it out from our consciousness than to really address it.  Or, and probably more accurately, those who benefit from the society we've created are profiting mightily from it and they'd resist any changes.  It's easier for them to just hand you a joint.

If we command our wealth, we shall be rich and free. If our wealth commands us, we are poor indeed. 

Edmund Burke

I was stunned this past week to learn that the United States has now authorized more money to be spent on pandemic relief than it spend on the New Deal.  It's also more money than the United States fought fighting every war we've fought since the end of the Cold War combined.

That's insane.

I get that something needed to be done, but that didn't need to be done. There's no way to spend that sort of vast amount of money well or wisely.  It will be wasted.  It will also be inflationary.

I'm not yet 60, but I can see it approaching and I pretty much figure, with this sort of vast injection of cash into the economy, inflation is inevitable  Goodbye retirement.

Now, that's sort of a selfish view, but at some point a person must be realistic.  In looking at the actual impact of pandemic on the economy it turns out that most of the economy was hardly impacted at all.  What was massively impacted was the service sector.  No matter, relief checks are going out to people who never lost their jobs and were never in danger of losing them.

The section of the economy that did find their work impaired is fairly large, around 10,000,000 people.  That's a lot of people, but it's actually a small percentage of workers.  And the money being thrown around to everyone won't help them much, as a large percentage of those jobs are never coming back.  Lots of people acclimated to working from home where they are comfortable, don't have to buy as many work clothes, can be around their cats, dogs and families, and don't have to put up with the guy three cubicles down who thinks that basketball is interesting.

Because they aren't coming back, not as many restaurants and bars are either. They just aren't.

Focusing that money where it was needed would have been a good idea. Throwing out checks to everyone on the assumption that people are going to run out and buy 500 cups of Starbucks doesn't make any sense at all.

As a further aside on this, the Democratic controlled House of Representatives seems set to act on a bunch of social policy bills of a "progressive" nature.  I haven't heard of their acting on a "Green New Deal" slate yet, but if they ever intended to, this probably shot their bolt.  It's not really possible to have any kind of New Deal when you just spent way more money than the New Deal itself cost, unless you are willing to super heat the economy.

The irony of all of this is that it can't really be said that the current occupants of Congress don't remember the inflation of the 1970s and how awful that was.  They must, as a lot of them were there then, or at least in politics.  The same generation that came up in the awful early 1970s has never left power.

 


He who loses money, loses much; He who loses a friend, loses much more; He who loses faith, loses all.

Eleanor Roosevelt

I had an interesting conversation with a coworker the other day who is somewhat obsessed about his graduating high school senior's plans.  I can understand that, the future of children when you have them, particularly those whose future you can not accurately foresee, is a constant and deep worry for parents.

It lead in a strange direction, however, and that lead me to ponder something further.

My father's father left home when he was 13 years old to go to work.  My mother's grandfather started working as an office boy, the same occupation my father's father started off as, when he was still a child.  I don't even think he was a teenager at the time.  My father's grandmother came to the United States from Ireland when she was 3 years old, accompanied by her 19 year old sister who raised her.  She never saw her parents after age 3 again.  My mother was descendant in part from Quebecois, which in turn means that she was also descendant almost certainly (and certainly my DNA would support that) from orphans from Ireland adopted right off the docks in Quebec, the survivors of Coffin Ships who lost their parents in the journey from Ireland and who would be raised as French speaking Quebecois.

I note all that for a tricky reason.

All of the people here I can identify went on to successful lives.  My father's father ultimately briefly came back to Iowa and then went on to Colorado as a businessman, married, and then pursued his career successfully to Nebraska and then Wyoming.  My father's grandmother moved, probably with her sister, to Colorado and married a shopkeeper in Leadville, and retired to Denver.  My mother's grandfather ultimately came to be the CEO of the company he started off as an office boy for.  They all had successful, and moral, lives and had successful families.

They also all lived in an era when the impact of immorality was pretty obvious and, while they were not the recipients of advanced degrees, the plain facts of biology were known and obvious to all.  We've lost all of that.

Wealth seems to be a lot of the reason why.  They all spent part of their lives living hand to mouth, although not all of them by any means.  Very few people do that now, which is overall a good thing.  But it's also the case that society has become so rich that there are now a lot of people who are made miserable by it.  Part of that is that people have a lot of time and money to spend on what are really basic urges, and to stray off in ways in which they come to try to self identify themselves by things that were in the background, but not self defining, in earlier eras.  People are now identifying themselves by their diets and sexual urges, for example.

Only a vastly rich society can spend so much time thinking about food and sex and define individuals in society that way.  If you move from Cork to Victorville Colorado and its 1890, for example, self defining yourself as a vegan would not only not occur, it'd be regarded as stupid, as it would have been stupid.

This doesn't mean that our vast wealth has liberated us from such things, but rather its seemingly enslaved us to our basest instincts.  Free from nature and distant from nature's God, we want to be gods ourselves, but can't seemingly think of a better way to do that than to redefine the most basic nature's that God has given us.  

That can't and won't go on forever, but the longer it goes on the worse the fall and recovery will be.


With luck, it might even snow for us.

Haruki Murakami

It wasn't snowing when I got up.

All the second half of this week the weather report has been promising a massive amount of snow.  The southeastern part of the state is supposed to get up to three feet of snow.

I'm really skeptical that will happen.  It isn't snowing here yet.  We'll see.  Anyway you look at it we really do need the snow or we're going to be in a severe drought this summer.

The thing that always surprises me in these circumstances are the reactions to the weather.  There's lots of complaining about it.  But other than drive to work in it, we don't really have to deal with it for the most part, unless you are employed in an outdoor profession, which is indeed totally different.

Lawyers who do litigation used to have to contend with the weather constantly, but now that everything is done via the internet, this isn't the case anymore.  The last major winter legal trip I made was to Baker Montana, and that's now over a year ago.  The weather wasn't great when I did that, to be sure, but I used to contend with winter travel constantly.  Not now.  And I wonder if the days of travel will really ever come back.  They probably won't.  It's changed much about work, including even the psychology of it.

Not that I haven't done some traveling, even during the pandemic.  And indeed, I've managed to catch bad winter weather twice while doing it, although both were daytrips.

Anyhow, for most people, winter snowstorms merely mean that you drive to work in the snow.  Not everyone does that well, however.  I was nearly killed earlier this week when some person on a snow day rocketed through a red light and nearly hit me.  They never slowed down.  And I've been seeing my fair share of out of state license plates on cars of what may well be new residents in which they're driving in an obviously scared condition.  If we get hit again COVID refugees will likely start rethinking their relocation.

Indeed, the weather in Wyoming is just flat out bad in ways that don't occur to most Wyomingites but which are actually bad and difficult to explain.  A Texas friend of mine once pointed out to me that Wyoming's northernmost latitude is still further south than northern France, which it is.  Indeed, much of Wyoming's latitude is on the same plain as northern Italy or southern France.  The reason he pointed this out is that he was convinced that because this is our latitude we must have the same weather than the south of France does.

Not hardly.

We're deep in the interior of the plains and our winters are long and summers short. We have wind constantly all year long.  Ft. Fetterman, outside of what is now Douglas Wyoming, had the highest insanity rate in the Frontier Army, and the wind and weather conditions are often blamed for that.  Every other year its noted that Wyoming has a high rate of depression and that this contributes to it as well, most likely for immigrants who come in here thinking that the nice conditions they saw in June are what we have all year long.  Indeed, I once read a deluded comment by somebody who bought some land outside of Bosler Wyoming about how they intended to retire there from their university job in California and then the only worry they'd have is which horse to ride that day.  Well, they don't ride horses outside of Bosler in January except by absolute necessity.  My guess is that person, if they moved out at all, hated Wyoming by March.

Be that as it may, our indoor life everywhere has insulated us from really dealing with the weather.  Last week the county shut its offices and the school district did as well.  I simply drove to work, not realizing that it was that bad.  Right now, the State of Colorado, which likes to have a massive fit about everything has mobilized the Colorado National Guard for the storm.

Well, like Dire Straits sang, "Money for nothing and kicks for free".

One thing that weather like this usually brings up is a comment to the effect that "on days like this it sure is nice to work indoors".  I've honestly never thought that.  Maybe its growing up here and being a semi feral person, but as long as I don't have to brave the highways, I like the big storms.

__________________________________________________________________________________

* "[F]or the root of all evils is the love of money."