The Dude after the last day of hunting. We finished up with an attempt, unsuccessful, on Chukars. He was tired.
As with most hunters, the season doesn't quite follow the calendar year. For me, it starts sometime in spring when spring turkey season opens up. When that closes down, its fishing season for me, even though my state doesn't really have a dedicated fishing season. You can fish all year long.
Indeed, when my daughter was at home, fishing season started as soon as waterfowl ended in January, with that being ice fishing season. She's away at university now, so there hasn't been any ice fishing recently.
Anyhow, there's turkey season, and then fishing season, followed by sage grouse and dove season, antelope season, deer season, and elk season. This assuming I didn't draw any special tags, like moose, and that would be a safe assumption.
Big game season yields into waterfowl season.
Seasons dictated by nature, the weather, and I guess the game and fish department. A better calendar, however, than one dictated by professional sports or by actuaries.
Indeed, if I had my druthers, which would mean having the extra time, I'd add gardening season and this would effectively be my life. Just the other day a slightly younger colleague of mine spoke about his dreams for retirement (which with five kids, only one of whom is in college, I'll predict will remain a lifelong dream). They involved "travel", and when I mean travel, I mean global travel.
I have utterly no such desires whatsoever. I've crossed oceans by plane more than once and if I never do so again, that's okay by me.
I'm a simple man.
Anyhow, in terms of unrealized dreams, this has been a year of unrealized dreams for me in a lot of personal ways. 2021 won't go down as a happy year for a lot of people, spirit of the times and all, and it certainly won't for me.
I did start off the year with turkey season.
Me early in the turkey season, dog behind me. Yes, the dog goes. The rifle in this picture may have been near its last hunt, as it was stolen this past year. The hat is a heavy duty Park Service dress campaign hat. The year before last my old reproduction, heavy duty, beaver felt M1911 campaign hat, which had become my fishing hat, and then hunting hat, bit the dust and, worse yet, blew out of my Jeep on the same day that the Dude was bitten by a rattlesnake. The jacket is a surplus Swiss Army smock.
For quite a few years, I had access to some farm ground with turkeys on it. That ground sold in 2020 and my access went with that. This meant, of course, that finding a turkey, in the general season, in my region, was made quite a bit more difficult, but that's the way such things go.
I stumbled on an area which in 2019 I was the only one who was hunting turkeys. Even better, early in the turkey season, you have to really hike in. Last time I really did this heavily, in 2019, I was about the only person I saw.
The season started off that way, and I did run into turkeys.
I’m probably the only guy who takes his hunting dog out for turkey hunting, although I'm not hunting turkeys with him. He's hiking. Things have gotten so that I can't go out the door on a weekend anymore without the dog. He won't allow it to happen. This is detrimental to turkey hunting, however.
I did find a turkey at one point, but I was armed with a .22 Mag rifle, and it was in a tree. I frankly didn't have a good enough view of it, from a distance, to tell if it was a tom or not. I passed on the shot, and eventually he flew off.
The next trip, my luck on isolation ran out. When I was up on the mountain, I could hear the motorized ATV brigade down in the valley. Trying to pursue a turkey down a heavily wooded slope, I could hear them coming up. They never saw me, but I sure could hear, and then see, them. I'm sure every turkey in the county could as well. On the way down they passed me, and then when I was loading the dog they went by me again.
Now, like a lot of folks who are gasoline jockeys, they weren't very attune to what they were doing and where they were going. I've had this happen twice this past year (I'll get to the other in a moment), but I was worried for the dog. Frankly, I was highly distracted. I put the rifle on the hood of the Jeep to load him so he wouldn't get hit. When they passed, with the dog in, I got in and started to drive off. I realized, however, that the rifle wasn't in the truck, and I went back to get it.
It was gone. I walked the entire area that day, more than once, and again the next day, and again one more day after that.
I was the only one there, other than them. I'm certain they took it.
And by took it, I mean stole it. It wasn't hard to figure out whose it was.
I've never liked ATVs much as I think they're an insult to nature, frankly, and people abuse them. I see people roaring over the sagebrush with them, and with their asses so welded to them that they just can't seem to get out on foot. It's not all that uncommon for me to find somebody who will state that they didn't see anything. . .
Yeah. . well if you are as noisy as the Afrika Korps, you aren't going to.
I did go back later, but, no turkeys. I did run into them, but I could never get up on them. I'm more than a bit unusual for a turkey hunter in that I stalk them, and I lack a call. Very few people hunt them that way. But when I first hunted them as a teenager, that's what we did, and I'm not patient enough to wait in one spot for a long time.
Then came fishing season.
Now, about that, I’m mostly a stream fisherman and always have been. I will fish other bodies of water, and I certainly do, but that's my focus.
I can't really complain about fishing this year, other than that due to my work schedule I didn't get out nearly as much as I had hoped. And that's something to complain about. Otherwise, my main complaint would be, I guess, that my son was off at school for most of the summer and my daughter had to have back surgery. My daughter is a long time fisherman and my son has taken it up with more earnest recently.
It's an odd deal to look back and realize that in some ways you're repeating your own father's history. He taught me to fish, but at some point I became a fanatic outdoorsman and there were plenty of times that I went out on my own. When I went to school, of course, he was left in that position, and he was a great and frequent fisherman. So he was fishing quite often on his own.
Now I am.
One of the creeks I fished this year, and should have done a lot better in than I did.
Anyhow, before late summer yielded to other concerns, I did get out some, fishing the creeks in the mountains. I reconfirmed a finding I'd make the prior year that a spot I found that looks good is, in fact, not. It also looks like it ought to be populated by bears, and it probably is.
Getting into the spirit of things.
The first bird hunting season around here is blue grouse.
This has been frustrating due to interactions with novice game wardens the past few years who can't quite bring themselves to accept that a person of six decades residence knows more about how to get onto this spot and never touch foot on private ground than they do, having just arrived from California as they have, and seeing the world from a 3/4 ton pickup as they are. When proven wrong, they varied from apologetic in the first instance, to blisteringly aggressive and rude in the second.[1] This year, however, the local chief warden took the matter in his hands and wrote me a note, for which I am greatly appreciative. So I got up in to the high sticks without incident.
Didn't see a single bird, however.
That, I suspect, is because it had been so dry. No water, no birds.
I also ended up doing this by myself. This used to be an annual routine for me and my son, and one year for me my son and my daughter. Indeed, since my son was hold enough to hunt birds, I've never had a bird season where I didn't have him accompany me at least once, but this year, due to university, that was the case. And not only for blue grouse, but for everything, save for fishing and antelope hunting.
Blue grouse here is followed by the short sage chicken season. I'd seen a lot of sage chickens in the summer, but ran into one during sage chicken season. Actually, the dog found it, not me, and I wasn't ready for it.
No sage chickens.
After that, both kids came home, but on different weekends, for antelope.
I managed, for the third year in a row, not to draw an antelope tag, and I'm not happy about it. I like antelope as food. I don't like the fact that my state weights out of state tags more heavily than any neighboring state. I am, after all, a killetarian and I figure that if you live in New Jersey there are deer in New Jersey. Hunt them.
Lots of economic interests don't figure it that way, however.
Both kids got really nice antelope, I'll note.
Deer came after that. I only got out once, although now I can't recall why. I didn't see any deer, but I did get stuck pretty bad in the high country.
Well, that's not quite true. I did get out a second time, but it was marked by the fact that I fractured a tooth, and hadn't realized it, about a day prior. It impacted severely that morning and by the time I was where I was going, I was unbelievably sick. I barely made the long drive home, and during that time frame a storm had come in, and the highway became a sheet of ice. A tooth extraction followed.
And then came waterfowl.
It was a fantastic waterfowl year, the best in years and years. I did do really well hunting ducks and geese, and got to spend some blind time with one of my oldest friends. The only sad note is that due to various things by mid summer things were a bit sad on other score and that lingered as I recalled that my trips out to hunt ducks and geese, with more around than there have been for eons, were again alone.
It was in the late waterfowl season that I had my second vehicular run in of the year, and it was similar to the first. I was duck and goose hunting on a stretch of the river. Up until the last few years, this stretch, which is 7,000 feet high, closes to fishermen because of the weather. Nobody wants to fly fish in 80 mph winds when it's 10F.
That's started to change, however.
For one thing, in spite of the high altitude, it hasn't been as cold up that high recently. It's still really windy, however. On the day I was out there, it was probably around 35F with 80 mph winds.
I'm a fisherman too, but when hunting starts, for me fishing stops. I'm more of a hunter than a fish hunter. My father was the other way around. Anyhow, I sort of figure that guys who have the run of the river from April until late August, can ease up a bit in September through December, and most in fact do. If you see a fisherman on any other stretch of the river from August on, they tend to be friendly as a rule and share the river. I try to avoid them.
On this stretch its different, however, and that's because most of the fishermen who tend to be in this stretch are from the big rectangular state to our south.
Now, I'm not the only waterfowler on this stretch of the river. A few other dedicated guys are dedicated blind hunters on the same stretch. It must be the case that they stake their claim and the fishermen avoid them. I generally avoid the fishermen.
On this day, however, I drove down to a stretch of the river in this area that I knew was empty. I got things, and the dog, out a couple of hundred yards away from the river and then, as the dog was milling about, a Rectangular State SUV came blasting down the two track and nearly hit my dog. Worse yet, they saw him.
What that was about was them getting to the river before me. They probably thought I was a fisherman too, or they knew I was a hunter and they wanted their stretch of river. I hunted it anyway. They knew they'd been assholes as they kept looking back as I walked the long stretch down and the long stretch back. On top of it, they put in on what amounts to a wind tunnel (I knew that) and had no luck.
There was no need for that.
Last year I took up chukar hunting in earnest.
Me chukar hunting. Why am I dressed like I'm in the Swiss Army? Well the reason is that I'm too cheap to buy the quuality hunting clothes that other people do, and I grew use to miltiary style clothing as a National Guardsmen and I like its features, particularly the zillions of pockets. On this day, the wind was bad, and hence hte hood up. Also, I'm wearing GI field pants over Levis for the same reason.
The reason has to do with having run into chukars in a major way in 2020. I knew all the spots they'd been in, and therefore I went back. I got. . . one.
Indeed, I saw them only once.
Another reason that I've taken chukars up is that in the last few years I haven't drawn an elk tag and chukars take me into rough country and I tend not to be very good at it.
I'm not one of those people who run around looking for challenges in life. Indeed, quite frankly, my life had plenty of challenges early on, and I don't need anymore. Frankly, for that matter, I tend to find people who claim to take up occupations because they're "challenging" to be full of bull.
Having said that, I'm completely different with outdoor endeavors. Maybe I do like a challenge, and perhaps that why I'm after chukars.
While not exactly on my seasons, my failures at chukars caused me to try to find out more about them and that lead me to this excellent blog:
Last day of the season. Yep, more unecessary camouflage for the same reason. The jacket is an Australian wind proff SAS smock that an Australian friend gave me, the trousers are U.S. Army pants. I'm wearing a Charhartt coat for wamrth.
Footnotes:
1. In the first instance the game warden followed me out, at my invitation, and in the end relented with "I didn't think that this could be done". On the way, I somewhat worried about him rolling his pickup truck and warned him about a hill, turn and traverse across a dam that's no big deal for a Jeep, but is a big deal for a pickup, but he did it. He probably didn't believe me that this was a way in and out.
Well, in the end, he did.
In the second instance, the warden started off as rude and argumentative. When I explained the road that I came on, he said "it isn't a road", claiming that 4x4s had just created it the past few years.
That claim was absolute bullshit. I looked him up, and he was a relatively recent arrival from California.
I should note that several years prior a different game warden was hugely enthusiastic that anyone had gone to such an effort to get where I was went, which was just a jumping off point at that for a hike in the mountains in pursuit of grouse.
Anyhow, with the experience noted of the two difficult wardens, I actually called ahead for the second year in a row. The first time I didn't get a call back, and then I got the rude warden. I did it again this year and got the regional warden, who was apologetic about his green underlings, and wrote me a note so that they'd leave me alone. I kept hoping to run into them, but didn't. Indeed, coming out of the hills the only one I ran into was on the main dirt road, and he'd just stopped a party of University of Wyoming female ag students who were on some sort of expedition. I stopped, but he just waved me on, which is what I would have done if I were him.
This will be an unusual post for here, as I'm doing something unusual in general.
Most years, but not all years, I post a "Resolutions" thread on our companion blog, Lex Anteinternet. This started off, quite frankly, as being satirical in nature, but this year it's much less so. Satire is a delicate form of humor, often ineffectively done, and this past year hasn't been very funny, so there's not much that satire would really do, for the most part, other than be super snarky. Snark is almost never helpful.
Anyhow, this blog, which used to simply be a catalog of agrarian themed entries on Lex Anteinternet, has grown into its own a bit and now has a little original content, although not much. Anyhow, we're going to run this post independently, even though another Resolutions thread will already be up on Lex Anteinternet.
Well, two, actually.
Anyhow, this past two years, if anything, have been ones that have shown how Chesteron, Leopold and Abbey were quite right, even though they remain voices crying in the wilderness. The voices we've heard instead, most often that of an ex President and his hard core acolytes, haven't been helpful. Maybe it's time to drag out the Vanderbilt Agrarians, Chesteron, and Wendell Berry and see what they have to say.
Indeed, that will be our first resolution for agrarians, farmers, would be farmers, and just folks in general.
1. Check out Berry, Abbey, Leopold, or Chesterton
The current pack of yappers is offering little in the way of deep content, and a lot of what they have to say about anything is outright destructive. Every now and then something of value is stated, but it's hard to hear it in the general mess of things.
Let's be honest. Almost all of the current "we need to go in this direction" is at least a little bit misinformed. If you aren't grounded in what's real, any wind can blow you over.
Doing a little reading of some grounded folks would be a really good start in things.
And things be Wendell Berry, Edward Abbey, Aldo Leopold and G. K. Chesterton would be really good starts.
2. Cut out the citations to the "I’m a billionth generation farmer/rancher" in the wrong context, and don't support it when its made in the wrong context.
This is one of a couple of posts here that are really directed at a very narrow few, rather than the majority of ranchers.
Actually, it's not directed at ranchers at all, but rather at the rancher ex pats. Those who hail originally from the soil, but now no longer are working it. For those who descend from prior generations of ranchers and are still in it, the more power to you.
I've posted on this already, but it really doesn't matter if your great-great-grandfather broke the sod in Niobrara County in 1890 if that doesn't mean you are in agriculture today. And it doesn't make you royalty. And. . .
3. Knock off the "agriculture is a hard way to make a living" line
Now, I want to be careful here.
Agriculture is a hard way to make a living, because of economics.
What it isn't, however, is a hard way to live.
This has been on my mind, to the political year, anyhow, but it recally came into the forefront of my mind again recently listening to an episode of Wyoming: My 307. It was the one on ranching, which you can find here:
In it, it had a long session pondering "why do we do this?" which arrived at a very interesting conclusion, that being "it's a vocation".
I think there's something to that.
But, we ought to be careful thinking that somehow because we're out in nature, and nature is a bit rough, that we're suffering. Far from it.
I've been a lawyer, a solider, worked on drilling rigs, a writer and a stockman in what now amounts to a whopping 45 years of working (I started working for pay at age 13). So I think I know a little about work and what hard work is, and isn't. And what work is like for most people.
Somewhere at some point in time somebody fed a line of crap to agriculturalist that their work is uniquely difficult in an existential sense. Perhaps in a physical sense, that's somewhat true, but there's plenty of other dangerous physical work that puts you out in all kids of weather.
And most modern work is, quite frankly, utterly meaningless. Most Americans don't like their jobs, as no rational scientient mammal would like most of the jobs that now exist.
What agriculture isn't is something that makes you work more hours per day than other people, particularly professional people, in horrible conditions. Not even close, quite often. And the working conditions and nature of agriculture are far better than that for most other people. If you think that your job is somehow worse than a computer engineer in a cubicle, you are fooling yourselves massively.
Indeed, this sort of whining, and that's what it is, really needs to stop. It's self deceptive.
Indeed, its harmful it two ways. It's self-delusion and makes us think that, if we believe it, we are really working a lot harder than other people, when in fact that's just not true, and it also causes us to force children off the land for a better "town job" that won't be better.
Almost everything about life in the towns and cities is worse. We ought to realize that.
If you doubt it, leave the ranch or farm and go into town. You can't come back, and you'll regret you left. Pleantly of people will line up to take your place.
4. Having land doesn't make you "landed" nobility.
This, I'll note, is also directed at a narrow few, not the broader majority, of those in agriculture.
Something really disturbing has developed in the US over the past century in which those lucky enough to be born in to agriculture sometimes sort of regard themselves as petty nobility in a way. It expresses itself in all sorts of odd ways.
Now, I don't want to suggest this is common.
Most farmers and ranchers aren't this way at all. But you'll see examples of it where people in agriculture will express a degree of contempt, on rare occasion, about average people. It feeds into the thing above, in a reverse fashion, in that there's a sort of "we work hard for a living" without realizing that a lot of other people do as well.
I'll be frank that the last two items are sort of in reaction to a current political campaign. I'm not going to get into the pluses and minuses of the merits of any candidate, but something about the videos of the campaign really strike me the wrong way for their strong rancher pull. I'm tired of people appearing on political ads in cowboy hats arguing that you need to vote for somebody because they came from an agricultural family that knows what real values are. It's insulting.
5. Support getting people into agriculture.
The worst enemy of ranchers in the west are ranchers and by extension this is true about agriculture in general. Agriculturalist decry those who regard their units as big public parks, which they should, but at the same time they don't do anything to try to help average people get into agriculture.
The reason for that, in no small part, is that it would mean a big personal sacrifice. We could support legislation that made agriculture and agricultural land tied to actually working the land as your real and sole occupation, but we don't as that would massively depress the value of the land. It's that value that operates against us in the first place, as it means the Warren Buffets of the world become the only one who can afford the land.
We could pull this up by the root and cut it off at the head. If we really think we're special and the real examples of the common men, we should.
6. Think local and organize.
My entire life I've heard complaints about the midstream in agriculture. The price of beef goes up, and cattle on the hoof do too, and the very few packers there are reap the rewards. It's hard on consumers, and it's hard on ranchers.
I'm sure the same is true in other fields of agriculture as well.
Well, enough of that. We know it's unfair, so what we have to do is to replace the middle men with processors of our own. We could do it.
Indeed, some agricultural enterprises, like sugar, do in fact do just this. But it should expand. Co-ops for this purpose, organized to process for the member's benefits and not their own, would be ideal, and could more than compete with the big packers.
7. Think Agrarian
Modern agriculture suffers heavily from the worship of materialism that intruded heavily into the 20th Century and, along with it, specialization of everything. We in agriculture often hear of "monocultures", but we almost all do just that.
Our predecessors did this much less. Up into the mid 20th Century it was really rare to find ranches that didn't also farm a little bit, for the table, and every rancher hunted (often illegally) as well. Farmers were the same way. A wheat farmer in Kansas was a wheat farmer, but he was probably also taking some game with a shotgun and probably kept a few pigs for the table,, and so on.
We have the resources and could lead the say on that, and indeed, some do. But the real banner carriers on this sort of thing shouldn't be people in the "homestead" movement, who are mostly chopping up big parcels of land to the ultimate detriment of everyone.
8. Know who is your friend and who isn't.
This doesn't apply to everyone either, but I'm sometimes surprised how some in agriculture can be hostile, intentionally and unintentionally, to those who aren't, but who want to enjoy something on the land.
"No Trespassing" signs and "No Hunting" signs are signs to locals that they aren't welcome. Signs stating "This Land Leased To Outfitter" are the same thing, except they show that the lack of welcome has been monetized.
Bills to privatize wildlife are the ultimate acts of hostility. Falling in second are bills to transfer public lands into private hands.
We should realize that there are people who are genuinely hostile to agriculture. The local newspaper publishes op ed articles by members of an organization that definitely is. There are a lot more people who aren't in agriculture than who are, and we tend to forget that, as for most of us most of our friends are in it.
Given this, at some point we really risk public hostility. Shut access off to the land, and next thing you know you'll be seeing "tax ag land like other land" and things of that nature, and you are out of business and out of cash.
It doesn't really take that much to be friendly to people.
Likewise, for some reason those in agriculture often support entities and operations that are land destroying. I've never understood that, indeed as we'll often complain about the same entities if they're on our places.
9. Think really local.
None of us are here forever. Try to keep that place, and keep the familiy in it.
People do a lot of things for a lot of reasons, but every time I encounter somebody, and I do fairly frequently, who ends up telling me "I grew up on a ranch", and I find them working as a lawyer, doctor, accountant, or whatever, I think it's a tragedy. That shouldn't have had to happen.
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:
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.