Spotting large predators in the wild is a thrill for any hiker or outdoorsmen, but coming face-to-face with a 220-pound cat can turn a walk in the woods into a fight for your life. Also known as cougars in some parts of the country, mountain lions tend to attack when cornered, or when they believe you might be a reasonable piece of prey. The key to avoiding a deadly encounter on the trail starts with a calm reaction.
Like this illustrated guide? Then you’re going to love our book The Illustrated Art of Manliness! Pick up a copy on Amazon.
Illustrated by Ted Slampyak
Category: Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today’s Classroom

Editor’s note: FM 21-20 (1946) was the Army’s field manual for physical training, and consisted of exercises and fitness programs developed during World War II, which were then codified after its conclusion. The focus of the recommended exercises was getting men who had been living a fairly cushy lifestyle hardened up and ready to battle the Axis powers. We’ve highlighted many of these WWII-era workouts before, and today we’ll take a look at another aspect of GIs physical training: combative contests.
Combative contests were all-out, rough-n-tumble matches that tested a soldier’s strength, stamina, and “will to win.” They were designed to add some fun leaven to the more routine workouts the GIs did, like calisthenics and running, and to build the men’s competitive spirit. As FM 21-20 observes, “Because of this competitive factor, men will put in more effort than they ordinarily do in conditioning exercises.” Engaged in mano-a-mano or between teams, such contests develop “many valuable character qualities such as initiative, persistence, cooperation, confidence, [and] physical courage.”
The next time you and your buddies get together, try out some of these contests — go toe-to-toe with your bros, find out if you’re as tough as a WWII GI, and see who comes out the victor!
The Value of Combative Contests
This type of activity consists of individual and group contests of a rough and strenuous nature. The purpose of such contests is to develop aggressiveness, initiative, and resourcefulness in personal combat; to develop proper footwork and weight control; and to train the men to react violently with a maximum of energy for the purpose of overcoming an opponent. Regardless of previously developed habits in maneuvering in such contests, the men should be instructed to attempt to over-throw the opponent at once. Hence, in these contests, every man is trained to give his all. Defeats suffered in early practice will be compensated for by habits of aggressiveness and by the quick and adaptive thinking which grow from such practice.
Contests – Individual Competition
1. Pull-Hands
Establish three parallel lines 10 feet apart. The men are paired so they face each other about 3 feet apart, both equally distant from a middle line. They grasp each other’s wrists. At the starting signal, each man attempts to pull his opponent back across his base line. Any contestant pulled across his opponent’s base line is loser. After a predetermined time, any player pulled across the middle line is also the loser. If the hands become separated, they are rejoined at the point of separation as in the beginning. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
2. Hop and Pull-Hands
The men are matched in pairs. Each man grasps his opponent’s right hand, and hopping on his right foot, attempts to pull his opponent over the middle line. Either contestant automatically loses if he touches his rear foot to the ground. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner. On successive bouts, they alternate hands and feet.
3. Back-to-Back Push
Two contestants stand back-to-back with elbows locked. Each contestant has right arm inside opponent’s left arm. A base line is established 10 feet in front of each contestant. At the starting signal, each, by pushing backward attempts to push the other over his (the opponent’s) base line. The contestants are not allowed to lift and carry their opponents. Pushing only is permitted. A contestant pushed over his own base line loses the bout. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
4. Back-to-Back Tug
Two contestants stand back to back with both arms linked at the elbows. Each contestant has his right arm inside opponent’s left arm. A baseline is established 10 feet in front of each contestant. At the starting signal, each attempts to drag the opponent over his baseline. Lifting and carrying are permitted. Contestants must maintain original positions with arms linked. Either contestant carried across his opponent’s baseline loses. After a predetermined time, the player carried the farthest is also the loser. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
5. Back-to-Back, Arms Between Legs
Contestants are paired off, back to back. A baseline is established 10 feet in front of each man. Each bends forward and, extending his right arm between his legs, grasps his opponent’s right wrist. At the starting signal, each attempts to pull his opponent across his baseline. After a predetermined time, any player who has pulled his opponent over his baseline or over to his side of middle line is the winner. Repeat with left hand and then both hands. The contestant who first wins two bouts is the winner.
6. Knock Them Down
At starting signal, each man attempts to knock opponent off his feet in any manner he chooses. He may tackle, push, pull, lift, or wrestle. First man who has any part of body except feet touching ground loses.
7. Step On Toes
The men are paired off. At starting signal, each man attempts. to step on toes of his opponent. Activity continues until the stop signal. This is a vigorous activity if continued for about a minute.
8. Arm Lock Wrestle
The contestants sit on the floor, back to back, with legs spread and arms locked at the elbows. Each contestant has his right arm inside his opponent’s left arm. At the starting signal, each endeavors to pull his opponent over to the side so that his left arm or shoulder touches the floor. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
9. Wrestling from Referee’s Hold
The men assume what is known in wrestling as the referee’s hold. Each contestant grasps back of opponent’s neck with left hand and opponent’s left elbow with right hand. In this position each man attempts to pull or push his opponent across a line or out of a circle.
10. Bulling
The men assume the referee’s hold, each grasping opponent’s neck with left hand and opponent’s left elbow with right hand. Each attempts to force his opponent to move one foot by pushing, pulling, or otherwise manipulating him.
11. Rooster Fight
Each contestant, with arms folded across chest, hops on right foot. He uses right shoulder and right side of chest to butt his opponent. The object is to make his opponent lose his balance and fall, to unfold his arms, or to touch his free foot to the ground. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
12. Rooster Fight (Alternative)
Each contestant grasps his left foot with right hand from behind, and right arm with left hand. He hops on his right foot, and by butting his opponent, or by feinting and sudden evasions, forces him to let go of foot or arm. (The name is derived from the position of left leg.)
13. Stick Pull
Three parallel lines are established 10 feet apart. Two men grasp a wand, stick, or softball bat with both hands. Starting at the middle line, each man attempts to pull his opponent over his base line. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
14. Pull-Stick Tug-of-War
Two men are seated on the ground with soles of feet in contact. Each contestant grasps a stick or softball bat so that it is directly over their feet. At the starting signal, each contestant tries to pull his opponent from sitting position to feet.
15. Stick-Twist
With right palms upward and left palms downward, both contestants grasp a wand or softball bat. Upon the starting signal, the contestants try to twist the stick to the left, or counter-clockwise. After several bouts of this nature, the position of palms is changed, and the stick is twisted to the right, or clockwise. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
16. Stick-Wrestle
With right palms upward and left palms downward both contestants grasp a wand or softball bat. At starting signal both wrestle for the stick, attempting to take it away from the opponent by any means.
17. Wrist-Wrestling
Two men lie on backs, side by side, and head to feet, in such a position that the insides of right (left) elbows are side by side; fingers are interlocked; feet are spread and other arm is by side. Each man tries to press his opponents’ wrist down over against his own side. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
18. Hand-Wrestling
The men stand facing each other. Right feet are forward and braced side by side. The men grasp right hands on the first bout (left in second bout, etc.), with little fingers interlocked. Each attempts by pulling, pushing, making a sideward movement, or otherwise maneuvering to force his opponent to move one or both feet from the original position. The contestant who first wins three bouts is the winner.
19. Harlequin Wrestling
Each man stands on his left (right) foot, holding his opponent’s right (left) hand. The object is to overbalance the opponent or to force him to put his free foot to the ground. Pushing with shoulders is not permitted. A modification of this contest is to hold free foot with free hand.
20. Indian Wrestling
Two men lie on the ground, side by side, with heads in opposite directions. They link right elbows. Upon the signal of the instructor or by mutual agreement, each man raises his right leg, with knee approximately straight, far enough to engage heel of his opponent. To time the contest, each man usually raises his leg three times rhythmically, and the third time engages the opponent’s heel, attempting to roll him over backward. The right leg is used for three bouts, then the left leg for three bouts.
21. Wrist Bending
Opponents pair off and face each other; raise arms forward; and with palms up, lock fingers. At the starting signal, each man attempts to bend his opponent’s wrist. The hands are brought downward between contestants. The man winning three bouts first, is the winner.
22. Wrestling to Lift Off Feet
The contestant maneuvers to grasp the opponent with front or rear waist-hold, and to lift him off his feet.
23. Wrestling
Each man tries to force his opponent to touch the ground with some other part of his body than his feet.
Contests – Group or Team Competition
1. Bull in Ring
No equipment needed. Group forms in a circle holding hands. One man, termed the “Bull,” is placed in the center. If there are more than 20 men in the ring, there are two “Bulls.” The “Bull” tries to break out by charging the ring so the clasped hands are forced apart. If the “Bull” gets out, he immediately tags another player who becomes “Bull.” This game may be played by two teams, each of which forms a circle. An opposing player is the “Bull” in each circle. At the starting signal each attempts to break out by going over, under, or through. The first man to break clear wins a point for his side. The contest continues until each man has been a “Bull” in his opponents’ circle.
2. Ring Push
Players are divided into two clearly designated teams, both of which enter a large circle. At the starting signal, players of each team attempt to push all opponents out of circle. Players forced from the circle are eliminated. All players must keep arms folded across the chest throughout. The contest continues until all the members of one team are eliminated.
3. Ring Push (Sitting)
This activity is performed in the same manner as #2 above. However, all men are seated on the ground, back to back.
4. Line Charging
Two teams form lines facing each other about 1 foot apart. The players of each team are 1 foot apart. A line is established 10 feet behind Team “B.” At the whistle, team “A” attempts to break through the line of team “B.” Team “A” may use its hands; team “B” may not. The players of team “B” usually assume a crouched position. After 3 to 5 seconds (usually 3 at first, 5 seconds later), the referee blows his whistle and counts the number of men who have broken through the opponent’s line and reached the baseline. The team which has the greatest number of contestants reach the baseline in three attempts wins. Indoor competition may be conducted on a string of mats.
5. Island
The players are divided into two distinctively marked teams. The teams line up on opposite sides of an area approximately 10 feet square. At the starting signal, all players rush forward to the middle of the area where they attempt to remain. The players attempt to throw their opponents out of the area. If a player is forced from the island he may return if he can before the contest is terminated. The team having the greatest number of players on the island at the end of 2 minutes wins the game. Indoors a mat may be used as the island.
6. Catch and Pull Tug-of-War
Two teams line up on either side of a line on the ground. The men attempt to grasp an opponent’s hand or wrist and pull him across the line. Two or more of one team may gang up on one opponent. When an individual touches the ground on the other side of the line, he retires to the rear of his captor’s territory as a prisoner. The contest continues until all men of one team have been pulled across the line. If any men refuse to approach closely enough to engage their opponents, the referee declares them defeated. Such practices should be discouraged, however. As a variation, those pulled across the line may join with their opponents in attacking former teammates continuing until no one is left on one side.
7. Goal Line Wrestling
This activity is performed similarly to #6 above except that a line is drawn 15 feet behind each team and when a player is carried or pulled across line behind his opponent’s side, he is declared “dead” and out of competition.
8. Horse and Rider Fights
Players are divided into two teams and paired off. One player of each pair sits astride the hips of his partner and locks his feet in front. At the starting signal, the “horses” move forward so that the “riders” can reach each other. Each “rider” attempts to overthrow an opponent. The “horses” are not allowed to help the “riders.” The “riders” are allowed to use all fair wrestling tactics; they are not allowed to interfere with the “horses.” The “rider” who touches the floor in any way, either forced down from his “horse” or overthrown with his “horse” first loses. Last team up is the winner. This contest should only be conducted where it is not dangerous to fall.
9. Human Tug-of-War
Two teams line up in two columns facing each other. Team members stand close together. Each man places his arms about the waists of the men in front of him (grasping his own left wrist with his own right hand is the strongest grip). The leading man of each team grasps his opponent about neck and shoulders. The team breaking first or having one or more men pulled over the line separating the two teams after 30 seconds is the loser.
Mix an equal part of misinformation with the natural predisposition of fear of the unknown and you have a perfect storm of B.S.
Kansas has a problem: It has a law allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom, but almost no schools are using it because insurance companies refuse to provide coverage if they do. As EMC Insurance, the largest insurer of schools in Kansas, explained in a letter to its agents, the company “has concluded that concealed handguns on school premises poses a heightened liability risk.”
One roadblock to arming teachers: Insurance companies
I am not surprised: This is a new area and Insurance Companies are notoriously adverse to unknown risks. If they don’t have the data to their actuary tables, their collective panties suffer incontinence accidents.
As proposals to arm teachers sweep across the nation, insurance companies are being forced to weigh the risks of these controversial plans. Some insurers are balking. Some are agreeing to provide policies but lamenting the lack of evidence about whether it makes schools safer — or increases the chances of people getting shot. Others are raising rates.
So, when in doubt, they go back to what they know even if it does not apply.
“Putting in more resource officers — that’s additional security — we feel that makes it safer,” said Paul Marshall, of McGowan Program Administrators. “It’s different when you start pushing it to arming teachers, volunteers, voluntary security.”
Marshall has a particular interest in ways to prevent school shootings because his company sells “active shooter” insurance policies. It’s a newer line of coverage that has gained popularity as schools look at ways to grapple with the risk of mass shootings on their campuses. The policies pay for counseling services and victim death benefits
More guns make insurers nervous in other situations, too, said Scott Kennedy, president of CCIG, an insurance company in Colorado. He pointed to the common preference among insurers that nightclub bouncers remain unarmed, while off-duty police officers working security are usually allowed to carry firearms.
Don’t rock the boat. And I am gonna hazard that the fear of being targeted by the David Hoggs of the Gun Control Side may have to do something also. But I am also willing to bet that the re-insurers that cover those companies have among their many clients a various and extended sundry of gun clubs. From the basic coverage for square ranges to full coverage for action shooting sports, gun clubs have not only insurance coverage but a long history of being safe which shows in the absurd low fees. I say absurd, because the monies for insurance paid by IDPA club I used to shoot with were substantially lower than paintball clubs or pewee sports.
The solution? Allow school carry and make it illegal to force disclosure to anybody in the School administration system. That would force the insurance companies to either stop trying to weasel out or they would have to stop insuring all schools and lose that potential revenue which I am sure is not peanuts.
Hat Tip Don J.
In his 1984 book about American education, Samuel Blumenfeld pointed out that “[n]othing has mystified Americans more than the massive decline of literacy in the United States. Children spend more time at school and the government spends more money on education than ever before. Yet, reading ability keeps declining. What has gone wrong?”
You have probably heard this lament. But here’s where it becomes really alarming. Blumenfeld looked back seven decades to the year 1915. That’s when the literacy figures for 1910 were published by the U.S. Bureau of Education and quoted in a weekly publication, School and Society, edited by James McCain Cattelll, one of the luminaries in the Progressive education movement. School and Society stated that:
Statistics compiled by the Bureau of Education for use at the Panama-Pacific Exposition, show that of children from 10 to 14 years of age there were in 1910 only 22 out of every 1,000 who could neither read nor write[.] … The following states report only one child in 1,000 between ages of 10 and 14 as illiterate: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Washington[.] … It is evident that the public schools will in a short time practically eliminate illiteracy.
According to the Bureau of Education, U.S. students were at least 99% literate a century ago. Blumenfeld concluded:
So apparently they knew how to teach children to read in 1910. Also, there was no such thing as ‘functional illiteracy,’ that is, a kind of low, inadequate reading ability which is the product of faulty teaching methods in our schools. The illiteracy of 1910 was the result of some children having no schooling. Functional illiteracy is a result of the way we actually teach children to read in our schools, for our teachers today, whether they know it or not, have been deliberately trained to produce functional illiteracy.
Admittedly, these were U.S. government figures presented to the world; maybe chauvinism was at play. But even if you tinker with the stats, the collapse is still catastrophic. The vast majority of children were reading and writing 100 years ago. Now, thanks to deliberate policies of our Education Establishment, we have two thirds testing below proficient.
Blumenfeld commented:
To believe that such massive functional illiteracy is an unplanned phenomenon beyond the control of anyone is to believe that our educators with all their doctoral degrees literally don’t know what they are doing. After all, teaching children to read is no big mystery. Teachers have been doing it for the last 3,000 years, and as the US government’s own statistics show they were doing it well in 1910 and up to about the 1930s when the big switch took place in teaching methods.
That was when our Education Establishment (most probably, I would suggest, influenced by Comintern subversives) abolished phonics and made children memorize words by their shapes. This approach has been a disaster, yet the public has been persuaded to accept it until this day.
I and others write constantly against this development, with less than the hoped for effect. Our society, and especially the people at the top, seem all too comfortable with rampant illiteracy. How is that possible?
Ayn Rand perfectly captured the country’s predicament in these few words: “[t]he hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”
That’s where we are. The glaringly evident escapes notice. Most Americans have been conned into not seeing that our Education Establishment (i.e., the professors in charge) must be the chief cause of illiteracy and other educational failure. Truthfully, nearly all of these pretend educators should be fired for demonstrated incompetence.
The power of our Education Establishment to maintain its destructive nonsense is frightening. These shifty people have put the leaders of the country in straitjackets, apparently. Even President Trump and Betsy DeVos cannot speak the obvious: children should learn to read in the first grade. Anything else is unacceptable.
If you hear about children bringing home lists of sight-words to memorize, start screaming. That’s where illiteracy begins: sight-words. If literacy is the goal, children should memorize the letters of the alphabet and the sounds they represent.
To save the country, we first have to save the public schools. To do that, we have to save reading. This is easy because reading is easy.
Coda: The Samuel Blumenfeld book quoted several times in this article is NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education. This book is scholarly, relentless, and – for most readers – shocking. Published about 35 years ago, it argues that the National Education Association promotes everything bad in public education. It is the enemy within.
Bruce Deitrick Price’s new book is Saving K-12. He deconstructs educational theories and methods at Improve-Education.org. Support his work on Patreon.
You have probably heard this lament. But here’s where it becomes really alarming. Blumenfeld looked back seven decades to the year 1915. That’s when the literacy figures for 1910 were published by the U.S. Bureau of Education and quoted in a weekly publication, School and Society, edited by James McCain Cattelll, one of the luminaries in the Progressive education movement. School and Society stated that:
Statistics compiled by the Bureau of Education for use at the Panama-Pacific Exposition, show that of children from 10 to 14 years of age there were in 1910 only 22 out of every 1,000 who could neither read nor write[.] … The following states report only one child in 1,000 between ages of 10 and 14 as illiterate: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Washington[.] … It is evident that the public schools will in a short time practically eliminate illiteracy.
According to the Bureau of Education, U.S. students were at least 99% literate a century ago. Blumenfeld concluded:
So apparently they knew how to teach children to read in 1910. Also, there was no such thing as ‘functional illiteracy,’ that is, a kind of low, inadequate reading ability which is the product of faulty teaching methods in our schools. The illiteracy of 1910 was the result of some children having no schooling. Functional illiteracy is a result of the way we actually teach children to read in our schools, for our teachers today, whether they know it or not, have been deliberately trained to produce functional illiteracy.
I just hope that God takes good care of them!
Grumpy
And here is why I am! Grumpy
The other day I was running some errands, and stopped by a coffee shop to grab a cup of joe on my way home. As I walked out the door and to my car, I noticed a big fat wallet lying on the ground just off the curb.
I picked it up, gave a quick look around to see if there was anyone nearby who might have dropped it (there wasn’t), and then pondered what to do next.
Should I bring it to a nearby business? There were quite a few around, so it could have been dropped by a patron of any of them, and could I really trust another random person to handle the wallet? Should I rifle through it to try and find some contact information on the owner? Should I return it a police station?
My questions were many, so I ended up talking with some other folks about what they’ve done in this situation, and also called my local Arvada, CO police station to get their advice on the matter.
While I eventually found the wallet’s owner (details of that later), I figured that if I wondered what to do in this scenario, other people do too.
So below I share some quick tips on what I learned you should do when you find someone else’s wallet (or other valuables) and want to be a good citizen and return them.
DON’T Return the Item to a Local Business
This was something the Arvada city PIO (Public Information Officer) was adamant about when I spoke to her. Many folks, when they find something of value — especially outside a business area (or even in a business) — return it to the nearest establishment.
The intent is good — the finder assumes that the person will come back through and ask around for lost items. The problem is that you’re ultimately just returning the valuables to another stranger. Just because someone is donning a work uniform behind a counter doesn’t mean they’re trustworthy.
If anything, go to an employee and leave your name and number with a note saying that you have the item and can be contacted for its safe return.
Try to Find Their Contact Information
This was my first course of action when I found the aforementioned wallet on the ground. I searched around through various scraps of paper and business cards, and eventually found a card with a name that matched the driver’s license.
I felt a little strange rifling through someone’s personal items, but I guessed that the owner wouldn’t mind when he got his wallet back (I guessed right, I learned when I found him).
So I called the phone number on the business card, told the man I had found his wallet, and he nearly cried with relief.
We arranged a pick-up location a few minutes down the road from me, and got the matter taken care of. The gentleman was so happy that he offered to fill up my gas tank, and insisted on my address to send me a card.
Another option here, especially if you find a business card, is to drop it off at the person’s place of work. That’s certainly a more trusted option than leaving it with a random local business.
Personally tracking someone down via their contact information is a little more involved and intimate than the other methods I’ll mention; you have to decide what you have time for, and what you’re comfortable with.
Ultimately, I met a strange man at a gas station. I was comfortable with it, but some people may not be, and that’s okay.
There’s also a risk with this method that the person could accuse you of having taken something, especially if something was stolen before you found it. You certainly shouldn’t feel guilty for pursuing the other options listed here.
Should I Mail It?
Present in most people’s wallets is a driver’s license with a clearly printed address. With this info, you could just drop it in the mail and get it back to the person without ever having to meet. If you don’t want that cost, you can also drop wallets (but not other valuables) off at the post office, and they’ll take care of it at no charge.
While a reasonable option, I wouldn’t recommend it for the simple fact that it delays the return of the wallet by as many as a few days. If I had lost a billfold, I’d be canceling cards and working on replacing items that night if I hadn’t heard anything about its whereabouts. While I’d certainly be happy about its return a couple days later, I would have already put wheels in motion to replace the things in it.
The mail just also isn’t as safe of a delivery method as the others. It could be sitting in a mailbox overnight, or even for a few days if someone is away by chance.
That’s my two cents; it’s certainly a fine option if none of the others are viable.
Search for Them Online
A quick Google search, or perhaps even better, a Facebook search, may yield results in finding someone who’s lost their valuables.
If you find the person and are able to successfully communicate through Facebook or email, you can arrange a pick-up location or make some other arrangement.
If the person has a common name, or your search doesn’t return any good information, you can utilize local Facebook groups as well.
The city of Arvada has a few Craigslist-type groups for locals; while they are primarily about selling and trading various items, every once in awhile you see someone post that they’ve found a valuable and are searching for its owner, and more often than not, it seems like a friend of a friend chimes in with a comment and the item(s) gets returned.
As with the above, this is a more personal approach, and you may not be comfortable with it.
Call/Contact Their Bank or Credit Card Company
Another option, particularly if you find a wallet, is to contact one of their banking companies based on any cards that you find. If you return the wallet to a bank branch of one of their cards, they’ll contact the person, who can then come pick it up.
This is definitely a safe option on all fronts: their valuables are surely safe at a bank, and you’re safe because you’re not meeting a stranger somewhere.
Return It to the Nearest Police Station
Possibly your best course of action, without even having to rifle through the person’s wallet, is to just return it to a nearby police station.
There, it will be kept safe in an evidence room, and the police will make every effort to find the person, pulling up any records they have and even using social media.
If they can’t find the owner by any means after a certain amount of time — 90 days in the case of my local department — it then gets destroyed.
This option is especially beneficial if you find valuables that don’t have any identifying information. The PIO I spoke with said they get found valuables returned to them all the time — from jewelry, to phones, and even photo albums. No matter what type of valuable you find, the local PD can take care of it and your own effort is minimal.
Which Course of Action Should You Pursue?
The options listed above are all good courses of action if you find a wallet or valuables. Is there a best option, though? One that should be pursued above the rest?
As noted, definitely don’t return it to a local business. Also, don’t let your first act be dropping it in the mail for the reasons listed above.
Beyond that, it comes down to what you’re comfortable with, and frankly, what you have time for. If you’re flexible and don’t mind meeting strangers, looking for the person’s contact info and trying to return it in person is rather satisfying.
It’s typically the fastest method of getting the wallet back in their hands as well, which the owner will surely appreciate. You may also get some sort of reward, and while not the point, of course, this is still nice!
If you can’t find contact information, if you’re short on time, or if you just aren’t comfortable with a face-to-face meeting, returning the wallet to a bank or police station is perfectly safe and honorable, and there’s as good a chance as any that the correct person will be found.
Whatever method you choose, at least do something! When you find something valuable on the ground — be it a wallet or a piece of jewelry — don’t just leave it there for someone else to deal with.
Do the right thing: pick it up, and make a reasonable effort to get it returned. You know that you’d hope for someone to do the same if you lost something.
And now, you know exactly what to do when and if the day comes you spy a nice fat wallet staring up at you from the ground