Showing posts with label Killitarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Killitarianism. Show all posts

Lex Anteinternet: The 2021 Season

Lex Anteinternet: The 2021 Season:  

The 2021 Season

 It wasn't a great one, for a variety of reasons.

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:

The Reigning Chukar Champions

It's a great read.

Anyhow, different year, different hatch.


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.

Could you do Thanksgiving like it's 1621? An Agrarian Thanksgiving

I wrote out a blog entry for Lex Anteinternet on what the first Thanksgiving Dinner in 1621 must have been like.

Pheasants.

It really surprised me, even though it shouldn't.  We modern Americans are so used to the "poverty of resources of our ancestors" story that, well, we believe it.  In reality, that first gathering in English North America to celebrate God's bounty and give thanks for it, no matter how imperfect the Church of England and Puritan celebrants, and the native ones as well, was a really bountiful feast.  I've joked in the past that it probably consisted of salt cod, but in fact it seems likely to have featured waterfowl, maybe turkey, deer, mussels and quite an abundance of other foods stuffs.

Unlike now, what it didn't feature was pie, probably, even though pies of all sorts were a feature of the English diet, although at this point I frankly wonder. What would have kept there from being pie would have been a lack of wheat, as that crop wouldn't have come around for at least a few years. And the lack of a grain crop meant that there wouldn't have been beer, if that's something your Thanksgiving usually features (mine does).  It's an open question if there would have been wine.  There would have been a lot of fresh vegetables, however, as well as fresh foul, venison and fresh fish.

It would have been a good meal, in some ways one we'd recognize, but also one in which we might note some things were missing.  No potatoes, for example.

This set me to wondering what a killetarian/agrarian like me might end up with if allowed to do a  Thanksgiving Dinner all of stuff I'd shot or gathered.  Could I do it?

Well, there'd be no mussels on my table, but most years there would be fare similar to what the first celebrants had.  There are wild turkeys in my region, although I failed to get one this year.  Events conspired against me and I didn't get a deer (at least yet) either.  But if I had a major dinner, and time, I think I could muster it.  It might be pheasant rather than turkey, or a wild turkey, which is really no different in taste, only in bulk, from the domestic ones.

The challenge, however, would be vegetables, depending upon how feral I'd take this endeavor.  If I went full hunter/gatherer, here I'd really be in trouble.  I frankly know next to nothing about edible wild plants.

Now, starting off, I'd note that in my region, like the rest of the globe, a vegetarian would have starved to death in a few days prior to production agriculture.  It's not only an unnatural diet, but it's impossible up until that time.  Indeed, one of the ironies of agriculture has been the introduction of unnatural diets.  When you read, for example, of the Irish poor living on potatoes and oatmeal, while that's not what their Celtic ancestors had eaten prior to 1) row crop agriculture, and 2) the English.  Shoot, potatoes aren't even native to Ireland.

Anyhow, I note that as the native peoples of the plains were more heavily meat eaters than anything else, as that's what there was to eat.  But there is some edible vegetation.

I just don't know much about it.

I guess I'd start off with that I knwo that there's a collection of native berries you can eat.  I mostly know about this as my mohter used to collect some and make wine with them, and I've had syrup and jelly made with them as well. UW publishes a short pamphlet on them, which is available here.  There are also wild leeks, which my mother and father, and at least one of my boyhood friends would recognize, which my mother inaccurately called "wild onions".

And that's about all I know about that.

Which isn't enough to make much of a meal.

Now, a person could probably research this and learn more, and I should, simply because I'd like to know.  Indeed, on the Wind River Indian Reservation there's a "food sovereignty" movement which seeks to reintroduce native foods to the residents there in order to combat health problems, which is a really interesting idea and I hope it has some success.  I hope that they also publish some things on this topic, assuming that they haven't already.

So, in short, at least based on what the present state of my knowledge is, the Thanksgiving fare would be pretty limited, vegetable wise.

Now, what about grow your own?

Well, if expanded out to include what I can grow myself, well now we're on to something else indeed. . . assuming that I can get my pump fixed, which I haven't, solely due to me.

If I were to do that, then I'm almost fully there for a traditional Thanksgiving Dinner, omitting only the bread and cranberry sauce.

And I'm not omitting the cranberry sauce.

I'm not omitting the bread, either.

Frankly, I think the modern "bread is bad for you" story is a pile of crap.  People have incorporated grains into their diet for thousands of years.  To the extent that its bad for you, it's likely because Americans don't eat bread, they eat cake.  That's what American bread is.

Of course, I think the keto diet is a pile of crap too, which I discuss on another Lex Anteinternet post.  So here, I'd have to make bread, or buy it, and I'd prefer to make it. Soda bread more particularly.

On this, I'd be inclined, if I could to have an alcoholic beverage for the table, which is another thing, albeit a dangerous one, that humans have been doing since . . . well too long to tell.  The Mayflower sojourners started off their voyage with a stock of beer. . . ironically in a ship that had once been used to haul wine, but they were out when they put in at Plymouth Rock.  By the fall of 1621 it's unlikely that they'd brewed any. as they lacked grain.  The could have vinted wine, however.  If they did, we don't know about it.

So in my hypothetical, if I stuck to local stocks, I could probably do the same.  I don't know how to do it, but I could learn.  But I'm not going to do so, as frankly my recollections of that wine aren't sufficiently warm to cause me to bother with it, and I recall it took tons of sugar, which obviously isn't something I'm going to produce myself.

I'm not going to brew beer either, although plenty of people do.  I don't have the time, or the inclination, and either I'd end up with way too much or not enough.

And this reflects the nature of agrarianism, really.  A life focused on nature with agriculture as part of that.  I don't have to make everything myself, but I have to be focused on the land, have a land ethic, and focus on what's real.

Maybe next year I'll try this.

Lex Anteinternet: Some feral threads in the fabric.

Lex Anteinternet: Some feral threads in the fabric.

Some feral threads in the fabric.

I'm not going to take this too far, and you definitely could, but a couple of odds and ends I've run across recently.


One is this Agrarian blog I recently located:

Foothill Agrarian

There are only handful of really worthwhile agrarian blogs around.  That's at least better than the situation with the distributist situation, where there's nothing worthwhile whatsoever.  Of the handful that are out there, the two best ones are linked in here.  A third one that is also worthwhile (which is a successor to two prior blogs, just as this blog also is), is also linked in, but it's not quite as good.  I'll do a thread on them some other time, or on all of these together. A fourth one would get a link for its actual agrarian posts, but it descends into "Southern Agrarianism" of the Lost Cause variety, and we're not going there.  Nope, no way.

Anyhow, I thought that this entry by an agrarian California sheep rancher, who is an adult entrant into hunting, really interesting.  He's also a self professed agrarian.

Persistence

We've posted a lot about hunting here, from the prospective of the nearly feral agrarian who has been a hunter his entire life.  It's interesting to see some similar views come about from the thoughtful agrarian adult who came to it late.

I haven't made it all the way through the back entries on Foothill Agrarian. Not by a long shot, but I was also struck by this entry:

Coming to Terms with Being Part-Time

This is a little like reading my own thoughts.  Indeed, this guy is just about the same age as me (I'm a little older), and he's a rancher, not a "homesteader", which anymore conveys something else, and frankly something less serious, or perhaps less realistic.  I'll be looking forward to perusing his prior entries.

I'm glad I found his blog.

Here's the other thing that caught my eye.

This quite frankly is a deceptive headline, but that's how it generally reads, even in English language editions of Finnish newspapers.  What it really means is that the City of Helsinki will be changing what it serves at official state and municipal functions, and venues it owns, and it actually still will be serving meat.

What it will serve is local fish and also local game.  We don't see wild game as a restaurant item much in the US, and indeed its subject to very strict statutory provisions everywhere.  Why peole make the distinction between fish and "meat" baffles me, but they have here.

This is being done, maybe, by Helsinki (its drawing a lot of criticism) to reduce, it claims, its carbon footprint.  There's a certain "m'eh" quality to this as frankly the concept that bovines are farting the plant into a climate crisis is not really well thought out.  Humans are omnivores and meat is part of our diet, including meat that is raised by farmers and ranchers.

Having said that, I've long been an advocate for getting your own meat directly, and therefore I'm somewhat applauding Helsinki here, probably surprisingly to those who might know me. They're emphasizing local fish, which is something that people of that city probably mostly subsisted on until the mid 20th Century. And hunting wild game has always been a big part of Finnish culture, and still is.

Now, I'm not advocating for what Helsinki did, and I suspect that the Woke city counsel of the city, or whatever its administering body is, won't have this in place long.  I'm a stockman and I'm hugely skeptical of the cow fart accusations on the climate.  Depending upon how cattle are fed, this is not the problem its made out to be, and so to the extent its a problem, and there's always been ungulates around all over, it can be addressed.  But I find it really surprising that in 2021 I'll occasionally find even ranchers and farmers who don't hunt.

People should get their meat locally if they can, and included in that, is getting it directly from the field.  Its healthy, and honest, and connects you with reality in a way that going to the stocked shelves at Sam's Club doesn't.


Blog Mirror: Losing Time

 A new entry by South Roane:

Losing Time

This gets a bit to a topic I've addressed elsewhere, both here and on Lex Anteinternet, that being that if I'd had my ruthers, I'd just get by on what I grow, shoot or catch.  That wouldn't be my wife's ruthers, however, so a volunteer cow and one of her cousin's pigs is in the freezer right now. And with my really bad luck on hunting license draws recently, if we got by on what I shot or caught, we'd be eating a lot, and I do mean a lot, of rabbit, as it's the only thing that in recent years I could be nearly guaranteed of getting.  

Having said that, I did get a deer last year with a general draw license.

I posted a comment on the linked in blog entry, which is as always well worth reading, but what I'd note again here is that when we look back, and some do, and think "I'd live just like my ancestors. . . ", well, they didn't have freezers.  At least not until the 1950s.

Related threads:









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

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.

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.



The irony.

 Same day, same paper. One ad celebrating agriculture, and one celebrating its destruction.