Going Feral: Boycott

An interesting, and frankly shocking to a degree, post by a co-blogger.  First the post, then some comments here.

The Post.  Going Feral: Boycott:    

Boycott

  

Cpt. Charles Boycott was an agent for remote land owners in Ireland who was regarded as particularly severe.  During the Irish Land War the Land League  introduced the boycott, directing it first at Cpt. Boycott. They refused him everything, even conversations.  The concept was introduced by Irish politician Charles Parnell, noting:

When a man takes a farm from which another has been evicted, you must shun him on the roadside when you meet him, you must shun him in the streets of the town, you must shun him at the shop-counter, you must shun him in the fair and at the marketplace, and even in the house of worship... you must shun him your detestation of the crime he has committed... if the population of a county in Ireland carry out this doctrine, that there will be no man ... [who would dare] to transgress your unwritten code of laws.

Charles Stewart Parnell, at Ennis meeting, 19 September 1880.

Maybe it's time to take a page from the Land League.

This comes up in the context of a Reddit post on Fred Eshelman's Iron Bar Ranch, his toy ranch in Carbon County about which he's zealously pursuing litigation in trying to keep people form corner crossing.  So far, he's losing, having had the local Federal District Court first, and then the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals endorse corner crossing as legal.  As we've noted here:

Eshelman is a pharmacist by training who has done very well, economically, in that field. So well that North Carolina's school of pharmacy, which he donates to, has named that school after him.  His bio appears on their site:

Fred Eshelman, PharmD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fred Eshelman is the founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC, an investment company primarily interested in private health-care companies. Previously he founded and served as CEO and executive chairman of Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPDI, NASDAQ) prior to the sale of the company to private equity interests.

After PPD he served as the founding chairman and largest shareholder of Furiex Pharmaceuticals (FURX, NASDAQ), a company which licensed and rapidly developed new medicines. Furiex was sold to Forest Labs/Actavis in July, 2014.

His career has also included positions as senior vice president (development) and board member of the former Glaxo, Inc., as well as various management positions with Beecham Laboratories and Boehringer Mannheim Pharmaceuticals.

Eshelman has served on the executive committee of the Medical Foundation of North Carolina, was on the board of trustees for UNC-W and in 2011 was appointed by the NC General Assembly to serve on the Board of Governors for the state’s multicampus university system as well as the NC Biotechnology Center. In addition, he chairs the board of visitors for the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of the top pharmacy programs in the United States. In May 2008 the School was named for Eshelman in recognition of his many contributions to the school and the profession.

Eshelman has received many awards including the Davie and Distinguished Service Awards from UNC and Outstanding Alumnus from both the UNC and University of Cincinnati schools of pharmacy, as well as the N.C. Entrepreneur Hall of Fame Award. He earned a B.S. in pharmacy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,  received his Doctor of Pharmacy from the University of Cincinnati, and completed a residency at Cincinnati General Hospital. He is a graduate of the Owner/President Management Program at Harvard Business School.

Indeed, the fact that Eshelman is very wealthy apparently was referenced by one of his employees in the initial confrontation with the Missouri hunters, which isn't a very wise thing to do as it looks bad.  Indeed, it looks bad right away, and then again in court.

So, Iron Bar Holdings is Fred Eshelman, very wealthy pharmaceutical personality.

The Reddit post, which was linked into an out of state news article, provoked a series of responses on how locals shouldn't accommodate Iron Bar economically, the posters apparently being unaware that he's a wealthy out of state landowner that doesn't, for example, hit the feed store in Rawlins.

But I wonder if they were on to something?

Iron Bar is employing locals, and those locals are serving to oppress Wyomingites.  There's no real reason to accommodate them. They probably do go to the feed store in Rawlins, probably stop by Bi-Rite in that city, and probably go into town there, or maybe Saratoga, from time to time.

Why accommodate them?

They're serving the interest of a carpetbagger and have chosen their lot. There's no reason to sell them fishing tackle or gasoline, or take their order at the restaurant.  

Beyond that, as I've noted before, in his lawsuit Eshelman is making use of local lawyers.  His big guns are, of course, out of staters, but he still needs some local ones.  Originally that person was Greg Weisz, who now works for the AG's office in the state. Megan Overmann Goetz took over when Weisz left.  Maybe she had to, as when a lawyer goes into the state's service, he leaves the work behind.  Both of them are of the firm Pence and MacMillan in Laramie.

I don't know anything about Weisz, but a state website disturbingly places him in the Water and Natural Resources branch of the AG's office, noting:

Gregory Weisz

Greg joined the Water and Natural Resources Division in January 2024 after almost thirty years in private practice. While in private practice, he focused on real estate transactions and litigation, easement law, water law, general civil litigation, agricultural law, and natural resources. At the Attorney General's office, he represents many Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality agencies including the Land Quality Division, Industrial Siting Division, Solid and Hazardous Waste Division, Storage Tank department, Abandoned Mine Lands Division, and DEQ itself with general legal issues. He graduated with an undergraduate degree in Natural Resources Management and a law degree from the University of Wyoming. His prior work experience included private forestry consulting, oil & gas exploration, water treatment, ranch labor, and forest products manufacturing.

Lawyers very strongly believe that the justice system is great, and that by serving client's, they're serving truth, justice, apple pie, and motherhood.  That allows them to stand themselves.  And to some extent, it's true, particularly in the criminal justice system.  The entire system depends on the accused getting representation, which is in everyone's best interest.

But that's not true of Plaintiff's cases.  Plaintiff's lawyers make a big deal of how they serve the little man, but much of it is a crock.  And in something like this, Weisz was serving the interest of a wealthy carpetbagger.  Maybe he believes in the cause, but that doesn't mean that people have to accommodate him, then or now.  Now there are questions that Wyomingites in particular and public lands users in general have a right to demand of Weisz, most particularly does he believe in  Eshelman's cause.  If he does, do we want him in the state's law firm, the AG's office?

Beyond that, for the Wyoming lawyers actively representing Eshelman, why accommodate them. They can be comforted by chocking down their service to a bad cause by liberal doses of cash.  Locals don't have to accommodate them, however.  Laramie and Cheyenne are not far from Colorado, they can buy their groceries there.

I know that if I was shopping for somebody to provide legal services, I'd shop elsewhere if I found my law firm was representing somebody trying to screw public land access for locals.

But it doesn't stop there.  All three of Wyoming's "representatives" in Congress voted against what Wyomingites overwhelmingly believe. That ought to be enough to vote them out of office.  But people don't need to wait until then.  All three are still showing up, I bet, at Boy Scout, sportsmen's and other events.  Quit inviting them. And if they do show up, do what Hageman did at the State Bar Convention last year, walk out on her if she speaks as she did to a speaker.

Is this extreme?  It is.  But these efforts never cease.

When being an employee of Fred Eshelman means you have to drive to Ft. Collins in order to buy a loaf of bread, it won't be worth it.  When Escheman can't get a plumber or electrician to come to his house, or anyone to doctor his cattle, or give him a ride from the airport, it won't be worth it for him. When lawyers have decide if that one case is worth not getting anymore, I know what decision they'll make. When John Barrasso quits getting invitations to speak, he'll know what to do.

There are limits, of course, to all of this.  You can't hurt people or property. If somebody needs medical service, they should get it.  If somebody is stuck in a blizzard and you come upon the, they should get the ride.  But you don't have to serve them at the restaurant or agree to fix their pickup truck.

Or, so it seems to me.  It would at least seem worth debating.

Boycott.

The comment.

Hobby ownership of substantial amounts of property like this ought to be banned.  If you own agricultural land, your primary income should be derived from it.

This could very easily come to be the case if states, including my home state of Wyoming, adopted agricultural corporation laws providing that only bonafide agriculturalist could own agricultural property, which I'd set at any amount of real property not used for industrial use which exceeded five acres in size.  That'd help preserve farm and ranch land from being busted up, and it would mean that the people who owned agricultural land were actual agriculturalist.  In order, let's way, to hold stock in such a corporation, no less than 65% of your income would have to be derived from agricultural pursuits.

Lex Anteinternet: Yellowstone. A really radical idea.

Lex Anteinternet: Yellowstone. A really radical idea.: 

Yellowstone. A really radical idea.

A really radical idea that won't happen, but maybe should.

There have been really horrific floods, as we all know, in Yellowstone National Park. Roads in the northern part of the park may be closed for the rest of the summer.  Here's a National Park Service item on it:

Updates

• Aerial assessments conducted Monday, June 13, by Yellowstone National Park show major damage to multiple sections of road between the North Entrance (Gardiner, Montana), Mammoth Hot Springs, Lamar Valley and Cooke City, Montana, near the Northeast Entrance.
• Many sections of road in these areas are completely gone and will require substantial time and effort to reconstruct.
• The National Park Service will make every effort to repair these roads as soon as possible; however, it is probable that road sections in northern Yellowstone will not reopen this season due to the time required for repairs.
• To prevent visitors from being stranded in the park if conditions worsen, the park in coordination with Yellowstone National Park Lodges made the decision to have all visitors move out of overnight accommodations (lodging and campgrounds) and exit the park.
• All entrances to Yellowstone National Park remain temporarily CLOSED while the park waits for flood waters to recede and can conduct evaluations on roads, bridges and wastewater treatment facilities to ensure visitor and employee safety.
• There will be no inbound visitor traffic at any of the five entrances into the park, including visitors with lodging and camping reservations, until conditions improve and park infrastructure is evaluated.
• The park’s southern loop appears to be less impacted than the northern roads and teams will assess damage to determine when opening of the southern loop is feasible. This closure will extend minimally through next weekend (June 19).
• Due to the northern loop being unavailable for visitors, the park is analyzing how many visitors can safely visit the southern loop once it’s safe to reopen. This will likely mean implementation of some type of temporary reservation system to prevent gridlock and reduce impacts on park infrastructure.
• At this time, there are no known injuries nor deaths to have occurred in the park as a result of the unprecedented flooding. 
• Effective immediately, Yellowstone’s backcountry is temporarily closed while crews assist campers (five known groups in the northern range) and assess damage to backcountry campsites, trails and bridges.
• The National Park Service, surrounding counties and states of Montana and Wyoming are working with the park’s gateway communities to evaluate flooding impacts and provide immediate support to residents and visitors.
• Water levels are expected to recede today in the afternoon; however, additional flood events are possible through this weekend.

Here's an idea.

Don't rebuild the roads.

For years, there have been complaints about how overcrowded Yellowstone National Park has become.  A combination of a tourist economy and high mobility, and frankly the American inability to grasp that the country has become overpopulated, had contributed to that.  For years there have been suggestions that something needed to be done about that.

Maybe what is needed is. .. nothing.

Well, nothing now, so to speak.

Yellowstone was the nation's first National Park.  It was created at a time when park concepts, quite frankly, were different from they are now.   Created in 1872, its establishment was in fact visionary, and it did grasp in part that the nation's frontier was closing, even though the creation of the park came a fully four years prior to the Battle of Little Big Horn.  There was, at the time of its creation, a sort of lamentation that the end of the Frontier was in sight, and the nation was going to become one of farms and cities.

Nobody saw cities like they exist now, however, and nobody grasped that the day would come when agricultural land would be the province of the rich, and that homesteading would go from a sort of desperate act to something that people would cite to, in the case of their ancestors, as some sort of basis for moral superiority.  Things are much different today than they were then.

Indeed, in some ways, the way the park is viewed is a bit bipolar.  To some, particularly those willing to really rough it, Yellowstone is a sort of giant wilderness area.  To others, it's a sort of theme park. 

The appreciation of the need to preserve wilderness existed then, but what that meant wasn't really understood.  The park was very much wilderness at first, and some things associated with wilderness went on within it, and of course still do.  Early camping parties travelled there.  People fished there, and still do.  Hunting was prohibited early on, which had more to do with the 19th Century decline in wildlife due to market hunting than it did anything else.  This has preserved a sort of bipolarism in and of itself, as fishing is fish-hunting, just as bird hunting is fowling. There's no reason in fact that Yellowstone should have not been opened back up to hunting some time during the last quarter-century, but it is not as just as the park is wilderness to young adventurers from the National Outdoor Leadership School in Lander, and hearty back country folks of all ages, it's also a big public zoo for people from Newark or Taipei.  

Since 1872, all sorts of additional parks have been created. Some are on the Yellowstone model, such as Yosemite.  Others are historical sites such as Gettysburg or Ft. Laramie.  All, or certainly all that I've seen, are of value.

But they don't all have the same value.

Much of Yellowstone's value is in its rugged wilderness.  Some cite to the geothermal features of the park, but that's only a small portion of it.  And for that reason, much of Yellowstone today would make more sense existing as a Wilderness Area under the Wilderness Act of 1964, the act that helps preserve the west in a very real way, and which western politicians, who often live lives much different than actual westerners, love to hate.

A chance exists here to bring back Yellowstone into that mold, which it was intended in part to be fro the very onset, and which many wish it was, or imagine it to be, today.

Don't rebuilt the roads.

That would in fact mean the northern part of the park would revert to wilderness, truly.  And it means that many fewer people would go to the park in general.  And it would hurt the tourist communities in the northern areas, and even in the southern areas, as the diminished access to the park would mean that the motorized brigade of American and International tourists wouldn't go there, as they wouldn't want to be too far from their air-conditioned vehicles.

But that's exactly what should be done.