Steven Rinella debunks Neanderthal myths, revealing their rodeo-like hunting injuries and violence comparable to modern humans while critiquing sensationalized media portrayals. In The Meat-Eater cookbook, he documents frontier traditions like bear meat and organ consumption, contrasting them with urban misconceptions. The 90% male hunting license gap sparks debate on cultural legacy versus biology, as he defends sustainable harvests—e.g., wolves in Yellowstone—against activist overreach. Rewilding efforts like the American Prairie Reserve face resistance, but Rinella champions ethical stewardship, blending ecology with heritage while dismissing prion fears linked to squirrel brains. His goal: bridge divides through education, proving hunting’s role in conservation and human connection to nature. [Automatically generated summary]
And it's funny because you sort of have the story in your family kind of like where you came from.
And I always knew I was 25% Italian.
And I knew that my family came from Sicily.
In fact...
The ranellas that came from Sicily all seem to become kind of established in the produce world.
My dad was brought up in the south side of Chicago.
I'm 44 years old, okay?
So think about that for a minute.
My dad was brought up in the south side of Chicago, and he was raised by his grandfather, who was Sicilian and had come from Sicily.
His grandfather delivered produce with a horse and cart in Chicago.
So...
To have lived through that, to be brought up in a house where a guy leaves in the morning in a horse and cart to deliver produce, and then to be alive, to fight in World War II, to be through the atomic era, the advent of the internet, right?
But I always knew that we had Sicilians when I did the genetic test.
At some point in time, one of those Sicilians must have shot southward and crossed the Mediterranean and had a hookup down there or something.
Well, that was the history of Sicily in the first place.
Just being Sicilian in the first place, there were so many people that were impregnated by the Moors and by various people of West Africa and North Africa.
You know, I hate to right off the bat get into something that I can't speak about with any level of expertise.
I was just reading a piece, and the piece I was reading had to do, it was kind of a dissection of what happened with Elizabeth Warren when she claimed...
It was a piece in the Times explaining how to make sense of, now that everyone's doing these tests, how to think about and make sense of these tests.
But my understanding of it is that you could have a lot of ancestry that just isn't captured in your genetic code in a way that would be detected through the testing.
Meaning there could be ancestors because you're inheriting chromosomes from each parent.
And somehow you could have, it could be an incomplete picture.
You could have ancestors that had come from other, you know, whatever these tests break out the world into a hundred or some odd regions or zones, that there could be people from those zones who are in your lineage that are not captured in your personal, that are not captured in your genetic code.
It's a bizarre heritage, you know, the idea that there was a different type of human that bred with Homo sapiens and that there's like little bits and pieces of it floating around in people.
Yeah, and people discuss them People discuss, I was having an argument the other day where they say Neanderthal or Neanderthal, and everyone grows up saying Neanderthal, and it's one of those things you're supposed to switch once you realize how you're supposed to do it.
Right.
Neanderthal, but I just can't get comfortable with it.
Because when anthropologists look at the skeletal remains of Neanderthals, they see this sort of suite of, this pattern of injuries on them.
And a researcher was looking at the types of fractures that they have on their bones and where the fractures occurred and the breaks and cracks in their skulls.
He was looking at all this and wound up working with a doctor who had a lot of exposure to rodeo bull riders.
And the doctor was observing the way in which that suite of injuries was very familiar to him from rodeo riders, the types of brakes and the location of brakes.
And this guy has this idea that they had a very confrontational hunting style, that they were mixing it up with big animals.
And another thing they found is that When you're looking at skeletal remains from early people, you still see that separation in the sexes, right?
That the males would suffer injuries with a greater prevalence than females.
But with the Neanderthals, it seems like they didn't have the sort of, like, duplicity of roles.
And then the females...
Have the same prevalence of these types of injuries.
And so maybe they didn't share that division of labor.
I don't believe that they've found they had adalattles.
Right.
And I don't know if they were hafting materials, but they were doing art And I think there's a little bit of a debate about whether they're doing representational art, but they were doing art.
They were probably making jewelry.
These are all things that, as we kind of wake up to what these people really like, and it paints a more complicated picture.
There's even this theory, and I don't know if this held any water or how long it was fashionable for, but you had this really long history of, this extremely long history of hundreds of thousands of years of Neanderthal occupation in Europe.
And then it seemed to be that, I remember someone putting forth this idea, that it seemed to be that there was this flourishing of advancement that was contemporaneous with the arrival of our own ancestors in Europe, as though they were being as though they were being exposed to or seeing art and seeing jewelry and mimicking this from these new invaders that were coming in.
But I don't know where that idea sits right now.
I don't know if it's been dispelled because of other discoveries.
But I remember thinking that was an interesting idea that they would...
And it kind of paints this really sad picture, right?
right, that they would be sort of in the autumn, you know, of their existence.
And here's these adorned people showing up with these amazing toolkits and all these abilities and kind of struggling to sort of catch up, you know, it'd be like the country bumpkin, you know, going to the big city.
Well, there was also this idea, I think, up until very recently that Neanderthals were not as violent as humans.
As homo sapiens, but now there was an article that was published just a couple of days ago that new evidence shows that Neanderthals, like, inter-Neanderthal violence between each other was just as bad as homo sapiens.
There was a really dumb theory that was being bounced around A few years ago, it was really hilarious.
About how we wiped out, we assumed that Neanderthals, because we don't have any soft tissue samples, we assumed that Neanderthals looked similar to humans.
But because of the very different shape of their skull, this guy had, instead of giving them European-looking white skin, turned them into a gorilla.
Turned them into a giant muscle-bound gorilla that preyed on people.
And this was like, I believe this guy actually was a professor.
And it seemed almost like a goof at first.
Do you remember this, Jamie?
We pulled this up a few times.
Killer Neanderthal theory, I think you called it.
He had drawn this thing, black like a gorilla, with giant muscles all over the place and these big crazy eyes, and painting Neanderthals as a predator of humans.
I was going to say my limitations as an anthropologist, but I'm certainly not an anthropologist at all.
I'm just a dude who's interested in it.
But one of my limitations is I'll hear theories floated, and I don't follow them long enough to see which ones have any traction.
I'll just read about them, and I don't take it as gospel, but I'll read about it, and I'll be like, that's interesting, and it'll sort of shape my understanding of it, but then I don't keep track of it.
I try to really follow the story of the peopling of the Americas.
So when it comes to the human history of the Western Hemisphere, I sort of follow and ideas will get floated and I'll track the idea to see where it lands in terms of scholarly consensus.
But another stuff like with Neanderthals, I'm always a sucker for a Neanderthal story, but I don't track what ideas that float up are just very quickly denounced as being complete rubbish.
We got a bull in Utah this year, and when we were butchering it, one of the hindquarters had been punctured by an antler, and it got infected.
And when we cut into the hindquarter, just this bucket of pus...
I mean, it was fucking nasty.
We thought it was piss at first, like someone had actually punctured the bladder, and then we realized when we got deep into it that there was this giant ass.
He had been assed, like literally, right in the flank.
In terms of the narrative stuff I've written, the narrative nonfiction I've written, that's my favorite thing that I've done.
It had to happen.
It was painful.
When I did the guidebook series, it came in 700 pages, and my publisher was...
My publisher was like, you know, you just don't really make 700-page books.
And so that's why we wound up doing the Volume 1 and Volume 2 because I didn't want to get rid of any.
But then in doing this cookbook, the meat eater fishing game cookbook is what it's called, and putting this together, I think early on we started to get a little bit kind of running a little bit wild about what was going to fit, but then caught it earlier.
But that was the first thing we did was started collecting the pictures because I think a lot of times you look at a book, an illustrated book, and it kind of smells like a photo shoot.
Where you can tell how they got the images, and I didn't want it to feel like that.
I wanted it to sort of feel, like, really representative of, like, so many different places and different experiences that are captured in here.
And so we just started filming these process shots of how to walk stuff through, like, everything, you know, how to, like, turn things, how to take an animal and make it into a variety of usable ingredients.
And collecting all those...
It took a long time, and then actually assembling it and putting it together was more systematic once we had that underway.
And I think it's a really valuable resource for people that hunt because it's just, I mean, there's only so many different ways you can cook back straps, right?
There's so many different ways you can put ground venison into spaghetti sauce, you know?
Yeah.
variety of things - including your original books as well a wide variety of things - you know - to cook and ways to cook them that's one of the things I really enjoyed about your show you know and still do but now that it's on Netflix actually I'd enjoy it even more but that you do a lot of cooking on your show that's that's very rare in the hunting world you You see these hunting shows, they're very one-dimensional.
You see someone looking for the animal, and then they finally get it, and yay, everybody's happy.
The end.
But you spend a great deal of time breaking down animals and cooking a bunch of different things, including marrow and shanks and unusual preparations.
always there for me growing up and hunting and fishing are very complicated and you do them for a bunch of reasons i think that people in explaining hunting to audiences or explaining hunting to people who are uninitiated uninformed about it maybe adversarial toward it you sort of you wind up grabbing these things that you wind up grabbing these things that um that you think will resonate with them right
uh i have a friend greg blaskovich who even worked on this research piece of taking justifications for hunting and finding test subjects who are skeptical of hunting and explaining various justifications to them and And seeing which ones of those they find to be most impactful.
So he's actually done research around, when you take this great, like this broad spectrum of reasons people do this.
And everyone has many of them as part of their story.
And you run them by people.
He sees these ones that they really resonate and which ones kind of move the needle in their perception of it.
And it's a little bit surprising.
There's some surprises in there of ones that you think would be really impactful but in fact are not impactful at all.
I think that people don't The kind of people you're talking about who are largely unfamiliar with it, but they're looking at it from the outside and they're skeptical of it.
They don't buy it.
I don't think that they're afraid of deer, generally.
Yeah, when he was looking at it with just general population thing, and it was full stop, too.
He didn't go in and give...
Case scenarios and examples, right?
It's just a question that you ask, and people, it didn't immediately click with people.
Another thing that didn't immediately click with people, but it's extremely important to me, is issues around heritage and legacy, okay?
So meaning that my maternal grandfather, my paternal grandfather were hunters.
My father was a hunter.
I was brought up hunting.
To a non-hunter, Doesn't matter.
Your grandparents and parents could have been involved in all kinds of bad shit.
I don't think that that means you need to continue doing bad shit.
One that's very obvious is people understand and respect the idea of food.
Your general population should look and respect the idea of food.
Now, to back up what I was getting at about you mentioned that being a big element of the show, it almost winds up being that I was fortunate or lucky or whatever that early in my career, I started focusing on talking about that aspect of it.
But it wasn't something I just made up out of nowhere because it was a huge part of growing up where, for whatever reason, I had to be raised by a dad who was just really interested in cooking stuff and sharing it with people.
And if you're driving down the road in June and you see a snapping turtle, We're good to go.
And everything.
We ate all kinds of fish.
And we ate a lot of things that other people weren't interested in.
We could go out and bring back our dad bullfrogs.
He would love it if we went out and got him frogs.
We'd take our bows out at night using flashlights, which unbeknownst to me was illegal and remains illegal in the state where I was brought up.
We would do it, and we'd come in and bring them, and it was like a big thing, right, to bring our dad the frog legs, and he would cook them.
He would cook and eat anything, and then he would do stuff where we would catch salmon when the salmon were running the rivers in October, and he would have people over, and we would have a salmon boil.
So I was raised around that stuff of celebrating wild game, having to be very social, having to be a way to connect.
If you went to the Pacific Northwest and asked a bunch of great chefs in the Pacific Northwest to list their five favorite salmon preparations, boiling them in a pot of water isn't going to make their list.
But we would do that, and it would be a thing, and you'd invite people over to do it.
So, early on, with all the things I enjoyed about hunting, the food aspect was big for me and really informed all of the sort of conversations that I've had around it since.
And so, in doing a show about hunting, it wasn't something that I was going to lean out.
But in all fairness, when I was growing up, I did a lot of fur trapping, too.
I trapped muskrat, beaver, mink, all kinds of stuff.
The first ones we ate, I had started reading about...
I'd always read narratives, stories about the mountain men.
Meaning, when I say mountain men, like a very specific thing, like a...
You know, a Rocky Mountain beaver trapper who was sandwiched in time between the end of the Lewis and Clark expedition and the collapse of the beaver market in the 1840s.
So a very finite period of time is what a mountain man was.
Jefferson was interested in that stuff because he had been to some areas, he had some familiarity and been to some areas with these large bones and he was puzzled about them.
He was wondering if this wasn't some, if it maybe in fact was not an extinct species but was somehow living in the American West still.
Popular historians really love to make a big deal out of that because it's so weird.
But it wasn't like, hey, let's buy the...
Let's do the Louisiana purchase transaction because of the possibility of locating mammoths.
I think it was like an idea that was floated around.
People see it in a...
People such as me see it and perhaps overemphasize what it meant, but it was an idea that was out there.
The beaver trade stuff was...
Certainly a big factor.
Another thing I was reading about recently that you might think is interesting is that people have this idea of Lewis and Clark going into this unspoiled, uncontacted landscape.
I was recently reading a piece by a historian who was talking about, at the time Lewis and Clark headed out into the Great Plains, There were Native Americans living on the Great Plains who had been to Europe and met the King of France and returned back to the Great Plains.
There's like pictures and an explanation of how to prepare, how to actually prepare beaver tail mountain man style in the meat-eater fishing game cookbook.
So, after that, we started thinking that when they say the mountain man liked beaver tail, we thought it must have meant they liked rump.
Basically like the hindquarters.
So we started, when I would catch beavers, I'd be careful when skinning them to not get the caster.
The beavers have two large glands on the inside of their legs.
They're like tucked in their, what looks like, if you lay a beaver on its back, tucked kind of on either side of its, like if it's a male, like tucked either side of its penis or either side of its cloaca, you'll see a, not cloaca, but like vent.
You'll see these glands that are the size of If you take your index finger and your thumb and make a circle, there's a gland on each side called a castor gland.
There's an oil gland in there.
They used to use it for perfume.
It still has value.
Today, it's used for a wide variety of things.
It smells beautiful.
If you're ever walking on a stream bank and you smell a strange perfume smell, it's usually beaver castor.
Tastes like you rubbed roses or something all over your food.
So I started figuring out to skin them and be very careful not to get the castor on your knife or get the castor on your hands.
And then we would just take the meat and put it in crockpots with potatoes and onions and stuff.
And just cook them down in a crock pot so you could pick them.
And it was like roast beef.
So then I started eating that, but then later I realized that I read other accounts of how people prepared beaver tail.
And if you take the tail, like the scaly-ass tail, and it really should be from a fall beaver.
Because the tail will be twice as thick in the fall than it is in the spring.
They're emaciated in the spring.
Take the tail and just skewer it on a stick and put it next to a fire where the skin starts to bubble and boil.
And pretty soon you can just peel all that skin away.
And what's hiding under there is the best equivalent or point of comparison that I can think of would be just, it's like if you had a really, like imagine you're eating a grass-fed steak, right, but still has that fatty gristle on it.
It's just made up of that gristle.
A lot of people would trim away from a steak and not eat.
That's what's inside that beaver tail.
But these individuals that were doing this were fat-starved, eating such lean meat all the time.
I think they loved it because here's like a chunk of fat.
And they had ready access to it because they were catching them to make a living.
And if you're just eating the meat, there's no fat on the meat.
And so they would complement it with just eating the beaver tail fat.
And I'll often tell people about it, and I even gave some too.
There's like a culinary arts institute, and I gave some chefs that stuff.
And everyone that eats it points out that it's not that it tastes so fantastic, but it's just like really interesting to try and eat it.
The fat from the tail.
You've got to put yourself in a position, you've probably been in this too, especially if you're out hunting and eating freeze-dried food or not eating great, and you're just exerting yourself all day, all the time, what you want to eat changes a lot.
Yeah, your body starts craving things that it absolutely needs.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Makes sense, and particularly when you think about these people that are hiking across the West, traveling massive amounts of distance, probably very physically strenuous, dragging all their shit with them, and they get across some big-ass piece of fat from a tail.
Yeah, and then our understanding of people, we used to have this idea of early Native Americans, they're just eating nothing but mammoth meat all the time.
As our understanding of people grows, you see how much they were utilizing plant resources and probably had pretty plant-rich diets.
But with the equestrian bison hunters on the Great Plains, Those guys weren't cultivating.
At that era, especially the era when Lewis and Clark came in, these people were not cultivating crops.
A lot of the people who had been farming along the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys, once they got horses, they just gave up on that shit and just started roaming the landscape eating meat.
The mountain men certainly weren't doing that.
They were just eating like you're eating meat.
365 days out of the year.
And you see that they really, probably to make up for a lot of nutrient deficiencies, ate shitloads of organs.
It's a treat to get a chance to talk to a guy that you think probably never even fucking heard of a podcast and certainly comes from a completely different era.
We were talking about Now you'll hear people say, oh, he's a real mountain man.
And oftentimes, when people hear that, they imagine this old hermit who's living in his cabin, him being a mountain man.
But if you think about what the mountain men were, they were, for the time, the most well-traveled people.
And the least xenophobic people.
Right.
The equivalent today, to be a mountain man today, the equivalent would be, I think you'd have to go to Brazil and ascend the Amazon and follow tributary after tributary.
And get into like the borderlands around Venezuela and then go in and despite the language barrier, you'd have to go in and travel amongst and live amongst people who, tribes who had not had a lot of outside contact but had a familiarity.
Had a familiarity with outside peoples.
And you'd live their foods.
You'd eat their foods and live with them and take their ways that they dress themselves and adopt it as your own.
The kind of guy that would do that is not the kind of guy we're talking about nowadays when we talk about he's a real mountain man.
But these people were insatiably curious explorers They're the people that do go to really crazy war zones or decide to go backpack up in the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan just to see what happens.
When you're around these people and they're all walking around barefoot and they're making cassava, which we talked about the other day that could easily kill you if you do it wrong.
The water has all the cyanide in it.
You're about as close as you can get to that kind of environment, right?
In a situation like that, You're with people who are very familiar with Western culture.
Very familiar with the modern world.
A great awareness of it.
But when rubber meets the road of daily existence, they're still really connected to...
Life patterns and skill sets that their grandparents used, and still fishing in very similar ways, right?
So where you might have had when you were a boy, even if someone now is in their 30s, when they were a boy, they probably used a 12-pound handmade wooden paddle, and maybe now they have a different paddle, or maybe somehow they've come into A plastic paddle, say, and they use that for their boat.
Or they still have a dugout canoe, but they also have an aluminum boat.
So there's major differences.
But just the general sort of approach and the fact that you're deriving all of your protein from the river and that you hunt and fish 250-300 days a year, In the places where your ancestors have always done it, you're still getting this really beautiful glimpse at how people lived, even though they've had enormous changes in their own lifetime and are very much modern.
Very modern, but you can still glimpse it more.
I don't think you really get that as much here.
Hunting is...
Ancestral, right?
There's this kind of continuation that goes on.
But when Europeans came here, when Europeans came to the New World, they weren't coming in as hunters, right?
Even if you go look at Daniel Boone's family.
Daniel Boone's family came from England.
They didn't come here as hunters.
Because the peasantry, you couldn't hunt there.
They came here and learned hunting.
So hunting in America, for Euro-Americans, hunting in America is like an invention.
It's a thing that people kind of got, learned, and took from the Indians.
So it doesn't have that deep, deep thread that you'd find with indigenous communities where there's this continuation that's going on.
For forever unbroken, but on this continent unbroken for whatever, 15, 16, whatever the fashionable number is, thousands of years, right?
And so it's like our understanding is just different because our, like my ancestors came here and like got into it.
It wasn't a cultural continuation for them.
And you look at like for food and wild game, an interesting thing is my My use and understanding of wild game is...
Really influenced by contemporary food, right?
Like restaurant food, things that chefs do.
How do you take wild game and do these cool, exciting, modern, innovative kinds of things with wild game and cook it?
You go talk to even a dude like Buck or particularly people in South America who've hunted for more of a subsistence, literally subsistence purposes, their whole attitude is different about it.
People in South America will eat Like the chimane or the mikushi.
It's like they'll eat the same thing every day for lunch.
Every day.
Boiled fish with a dried pepper on it, and then a grain made from cassava.
Well, they sometimes do, but for lunch, it's like you'd take leftover.
You'd probably smoke what they would call barbecue fish, where you make a big rack.
You have a fire and make a big rack high above it.
It kicks off a bunch of smoke.
You split fish, salt them, and lay them on that rack and smoke them, dry them out.
And then you take that fish and break it apart and pour river water over cassava and then put fish in there with river water and kind of stir it up.
Or you just take fish and throw it in a pot and boil it and put that on there.
But to eat that same thing every day.
And then you come and talk about...
There's no recipe.
There's no written preparation.
And then you come and talk about wild game cooking, as I understand it, where you make a book and it's got a hundred different recipes in it and all these ways to approach stuff.
It's very particular to us.
Other people aren't really perceiving it that way.
They don't use wild game in recipes.
There's like, here's how you cook this.
And we don't really deviate from cooking it this way.
Where it's like fish on a rack over the fire or fish in a pot of water.
No, there's definitely an envious part To live that deliberately.
I'm a little bit envious of it.
But really, the thing that I feel most is I feel more than separated.
I tend to feel more the areas in which I'd be aligned.
Where I appreciate the perspective and I appreciate the skill set.
But never feeling...
Yeah, never feeling like bashful or ashamed or something that this would be something that I would like choose to engage in and this is something they were engaged in.
And I think that one of the things that helps make it that way is how much they love to do it.
Right?
That when you go out, like the infectious excitement of heading out in the morning, the fact that they still feel it.
Like they're as giddy as anybody about going out and doing it.
When we had a daughter, my wife was adamant early on, as soon as she found out that it was going to be a daughter, that you will not exclude our daughter in this world that you're in.
I was like, of course not.
And I don't, but...
Having, in my mind, I don't feel like I've messed this up.
I feel like I've put the same emphasis, right?
I have three kids, but my older two, the little one's just a little bit too little.
You have to really know what's going on.
But the older two, I feel like I put the same emphasis on it.
And my daughter just isn't demonstrating the same enthusiasm that her older brother does.
And you try to suss out the nature-nurture question, because I feel like I'm doing the same inputs.
And it leads you to wonder, you know, it's a very small sample size.
But when I talk to other parents, like, you know, parents who are parenting right now young kids, I just keep encountering other dads who are having the same experience.
And it really leads you to wonder sort of, like, what sort of, like, cultural influences are going on there.
where it's like the enthusiasms oftentimes among young girls are not as high as the enthusiasms among boys it's hard to unpack i don't know it's hard to unpack everything yeah that's that's my question is like i don't know age what's how old your kids well the two i'm talking about are eight and five Yeah, man, I don't know how much culture plays a part.
Jamie and I were just talking about this yesterday because I was watching this video of these...
I want to try to put this in a respectful way.
I'm sure you're aware of this.
There's people that are in the hunting world, the outdoor industry, that I think are in it because it's a good avenue to get attention if you're like a hot chick.
If you're a hot chick and you wear pink and you go out and shoot things, you take all these grip and grins with deer, you're going to get a lot of likes.
And who wants to be a part of the outdoor industry and go, oh, this guy is just doing this because he thinks this is his avenue for fame and success.
I think, well, here's a guy who really likes to hunt and he realizes there's people like Steve Rinella and John Dudley out there and these famous hunters.
Man, I want to be a famous hunter.
How do I do it?
You know, how do I go?
Well, I'm going to just start taking Instagram pictures and say a lot of the same shit that they say and sort of, you know, put myself into the cultural norm.
Super made up, full war paint, fake eyelashes, hot as fuck, skin tight clothes, out there shooting shit, taking pictures.
Yeah, it's weird.
And then you go to their Instagram page, and it's like, there's pictures of that, and then there's a lot of pictures with their butt up in the air where they're doing some strange exercise.
I mean, rather than looking at personal experience, just like from kind of exploring the literature and reading about...
You know, historic accounts and what people found and what people do.
It is very much the norm.
It is very much the norm that hunting was, you know, patrilineal descent activity.
And all these cultures you go to, like the cult of the hunter is like a male sort of cult.
But the factors that made it that way...
You have to assume it comes from some kind of practical factor, right?
The factors that made it that way aren't there anymore.
And like I said, it's a difficult thing to unpack.
If it winds up being that if I have two boys and one girl, if it winds up being that...
If both boys become avid hunters and fishermen, and somehow my daughter does not, I'll probably view it as some bit of a personal failure, though I'll never know what really was going on.
Like I said, it's hard to unload it.
I wish I could have 100 children, like 50 girls and 50 boys, and have a bigger sample size.
But I do wonder about it.
And what's funny, too, is there's no...
At our home, our kids eat tons of wild game.
At our home, to the point where they don't have any...
You could give them anything to eat.
They would eat it, and it would not register to them as unusual.
They've eaten everything.
Right?
They've even eaten breakfast sausage made out of fox and beaver meat.
Folks don't know that, many people listening to this, that pigeons were actually brought over here as food, and when you get like fancy squab on the menu, that's what a pigeon is.
It has a more livery quality, and squab is very tender, pinkish.
It's not like quail, but it's leaning way more in the direction of quail.
Like if a pigeon and a quail had a baby, squab's more like that.
It's...
One of the biggest surprises I had, that was one of the biggest surprises that I've ever had in game, if we can count that as wild game, would be what a squab tasted like.
Because I had for a long time eaten street pigeons.
Because, you know, street pigeons, you know, they're around.
Even up in the Missouri breaks, you get street pigeons that nest up in the cliffs.
And, you know, there's many places you can hunt street pigeons and they become an agricultural pest.
And they're not regulated.
So there's no close season, no bag limit.
They're treated like...
They're regulated like rats.
If you could talk to wildlife managers and ask them if they could wave a magic wand and make street pigeons go away, most everybody would wave it because they're so costly.
They're costly to cities.
They're costly to agriculture.
So I'd always eaten pigeons.
But the minute of discovering what a squab was like, which is well known to people in fine dining, but I had never had it.
It's not bad to put it in a marinade and you can grill it.
You want to take the little brass and you poke it a whole bunch, like poke it with a fork and tenderize a little bit and also make some avenues of approach for the marinade and grill them over a very hot flame.
But what's good is to use it similar to stuff with ptarmigan or whatever, to make pâtés and terrines.
The best ptarmigan I've ever eaten, and this is in our new cookbook, too.
I mentioned using ptarmigan for it, but it's just a dish that's great for regular, like any kind of meat, particularly game birds.
like you have you have a hot pot yeah where you like where you have the you know you have like the simmering broth and you have all these raw like raw sliced meats that you dip in there um the best time i've ever had is just like that it's it's otherworldly you know it's just kind of like like kind of like when you slice it thin and cook that way it just kind of vanishes on your tongue it's a very very tender meat you can almost kind of mash it up
people like a thing you hear with a carmigan street pigeon a lot of game birds people describe as livery diving ducks being livery because there's like a texture thing to it and then the strength of flavor and a darkness of color um And those, you know, people make a lot of pates with liver, right?
So those birds that have that quality, oftentimes they just find their way into pates.
So we also have recipes for that.
Like how to do pates from using all manner of meat.
Among people who know blackberries are widely accepted as being good to eat.
If you go into, if you go to, earlier I mentioned Daniel Boone.
So if you go into that, like the frontier era of American history, right, which preceded, just these little lingo terms, the frontier era of American history preceded the mountain man era of American history, like the eastern settlements, right?
If you read about Daniel Boone's area, Early 1700s, up into the Revolutionary War, bear meat was the most popular meat on the frontier.
People hunted deer to sell deer hides, and they would eat the deer meat.
People hunted bears because that's what they liked to eat.
It's just more beef-like, you know?
Right.
When cooked, right?
People loved bear meat.
Brown bears, grizzly bears just don't enjoy the same reputation.
Different diets.
The thing you run in with brown...
When we use the term brown...
Brown bear is kind of almost like a...
It's used amongst hunters a lot, but it's all one species.
So whether you've got a grizzly bear in Wyoming or a brown bear on Kodiak, taxonomically it's regarded as a single species.
A brown bear is a grizzly...
You'll get all kinds of people writing you to say about various points of this, but debating various aspects of this.
A brown bear is a grizzly with access to marine resources, where marine resources make up a major component of its diet.
And then the question you bring up is then if you go to the North Slope, so if you go to the Arctic Coast and you saw a grizzly there, you'd be like, well, he has access to marine resources.
He can eat a beached whale, whatever, but he's a grizzly.
So, like, brown bears kind of extend, right, from, you know, northern BC up around and hook around into the Bering Sea, but at some point they're just not brown bears anymore, and they're huge.
They tend to be big.
And oftentimes, because of the name, they tend to have a darker coloration.
They have a horrible reputation as food.
You'll always find people who will point it out, right?
Or nowadays, because people are so aware, like in the social media world, nowadays you'll have people who will kill a brown bear, and here you are, you've got 400 or 500 pounds of meat, and they'll talk about how they're going to eat it, but like, dude, you're in for a pound a day.
So you go to the ABC Islands, you go to Admiralty Island, and Admiralty Island is all brown bears.
So it winds up being that if the island is good brown bear habitat, it will only have brown bears.
Because on the islands, where it's smaller, They kill all the black bears.
They're there and black bears aren't there.
If the island is not brown bear habitat and can't support brown bears, it'll become a black bear island.
Prince of Wales is a black bear island.
Admiralty is a brown bear island.
It kind of depends on how much...
Seems to maybe depend on how much open country or alpine or...
If it's densely, densely forested, it's less suitable and becomes a black bear territory.
But...
Black bears in the spring have a salvage requirement because if you're talking about coastal bears, coastal bears are better to eat in the spring when they're not eating tons of rotten salmon.
In the fall, there wouldn't be a salvage requirement because when they're eating dead salmon...
And he has been fascinated by my obsession with hunting.
And so he started watching a bunch of hunting things online.
And he said he was very put off.
I saw people killing bears with spears.
And celebrating.
And the way they were celebrating about stuff.
He's like, he found the whole thing.
And I saw his point.
And we had this discussion about it where...
You know, acknowledging the need to control the population and that this is all, that they're allocated a certain amount of tags by wildlife biologists and this keeps the moose population healthy and the deer population, all these different things.
And even that people eat them.
All those things made sense to him.
But the celebration and all the hooting and hollering and stuff, it's like there was just not enough of a reverence for the dead and it really, really disturbed him.
It's hard to approach because you find so many contradictions in weird parts of it.
By that I mean this.
I was having a conversation the other night with a gentleman over dinner and we were talking about...
He was explaining to me what is the role of a rancher and what is the role of a farmer.
Here's a person who's bringing animals into life.
He's propagating breeding animals with the sole intention...
That they will all die, and he will make his living off of their death.
But that person remains a sort of cultural icon.
They enjoy a celebration.
When you're trying to sell a pickup truck, if you can tie it to a rancher, it makes that pickup truck seem more legitimate.
That's a celebrated character.
People are like, oh, he's an old cowboy.
And we like that.
I'm definitely not knocking them.
Let me get where I'm going with this.
But that person is based off of rearing animals in order that they may die, and he profits from their death and remains celebrated.
And then you get into the idea of what, when it comes to American wildlife, Where we have a population of wildlife, in many respects, we have it and enjoy the management that we do and the abundance that we do.
In many ways, that abundance is supported, bolstered, financed by hunters.
But hunters tend to not enjoy that same cultural support because of the death.
If all of our depictions about hunting were tied into this sort of rational discourse and they showed all the images from your show of animals being shot and carefully butchered in the field and then prepared and cooked and enjoyed, I think people would have a way different perception.
But we have Elmer Fudd.
We have the evil hunters in the movies that are always trying to torture the animals.
I mean, it's Disney and anthropomorphization of these animals and all these different films and media depictions and books.
That shit.
And then teddy bears.
All these things are stained into people's brains of what's good and what's bad.
Very few kids have stuffed cows that they're pets or that they're toys.
They have teddy bears and maybe Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
No, it seems that it gets much worse and more contentious the less the population.
If the American population is looking at something that they recognize as game, they feel different.
Things that they don't recognize as game, that they don't readily recognize as game, To see that death is more abhorrent to them, even if it is being treated as game.
You don't see social media explosions come up around someone with a turkey.
You don't see a lot of social media explosions come up with someone around a whitetail deer.
People look at that, they see this animal that they perceive to be very abundant.
In the case of whitetails and turkeys, they're correct.
Very abundant.
They're familiar with them.
They're familiar with the idea of these things being hunted.
And it feels different.
Now, if there's things where there's a perceived scarcity, and they don't immediately recognize it as a food item, it's hard for them.
Extremely, and this is way outside of my personal area of expertise, like what goes on in Africa, but for people to see animals in Africa that have been hunted and they recognize them only from like Film depictions, cartoon depictions, mobiles over their child's crib, like a hippopotamus.
You can't look at that and it's hard to see that as the harvest of game.
It becomes something very different.
We've watched it happen with bears.
Also, a thing that will happen is if you initiate the hunting of something, That wasn't hunted before.
That's very difficult for people.
So you take a state where, like New Jersey or Florida, where they for a long time, you know, historically they would have a bear season.
They would lose the bear season.
The bear season would go away because of a resource scarcity.
Then later they would recover the resource and want to reinitiate the hunt.
People have a very difficult time with that.
Being like, if it wasn't hunted before, how can it be hunted now?
And that trips people up really bad.
People are hard to get on board with it.
I don't know if you watch what's going on with grizzly bears around...
What has been unfortunately named the greater Yellowstone ecosystem where you sort of have this cultural custody battle around who owns this Indiana-sized hunk of land surrounding Yellowstone.
Because of naming, people sort of think of it as Yellowstone when it certainly is not.
It's a large area surrounding it.
But there, we had a period where we stopped grizzly hunting because the animals were being slaughtered.
Over harvested, habitat destruction, and then you go through an enormous amount of work to recover the species.
And people are extremely resistant to the idea that you would start hunting now, that you would now start hunting something you weren't hunting a few days ago.
But it's also what you were saying earlier that's not recognized as a game species because it's not thought of something you eat.
Like mountain lions.
Even if mountain lions are a nuisance.
There was a woman that had a depredation permit because mountain lions had killed 10 alpacas and a goat in her farm in Malibu.
And she decided not to act on the permit because there were so many different people that were threatening her.
There were so many wildlife activists that were threatening her and just general people online, death threats, because she was going to hire someone to shoot this mountain lion that had been, I mean, it just went on a thrill kill and got into one of her pens and just went ham.
But people, they think of that thing as somehow or another better than her alpacas.
If they didn't kill the lion, if the lion is just out there roaming around, I think people would just ignore it because the news cycle is so fucking quick.
It's like, you know, in the case of mountain lions, you have rapidly expanding mountain lion populations.
There's a lot of mountain lions.
Mountain lions are recolonizing new territories all the time.
They're managed, you know, most states manage them very tightly with mortality quotas, female mortality quotas, open season, closed season, permit draws, right?
They're managed as a game animal.
They're hunted and there's some allowable use of the renewable resource.
And at the same time that that's going on, we're enjoying expanding populations of mountain lions.
I personally...
Welcome the return of mountain lions to any suitable habitat where there's enough space for them to live without causing undue friction by them butting up against human interests.
And I encourage people who are in areas that are being recolonized by mountain lions to practice some level of tolerance and use best-case practices around to avoid conflict, right?
Same thing with bears.
I welcome the return of bears.
I think there's a lot of areas in this country, not a lot, but there's a handful of areas in this country that could have sustainable populations of grizzly bears, that's suitable habitat that is not being used by grizzly bears and could and should be used by grizzly bears.
At the same time, I like to see, when it's appropriate, I like to see state-managed wildlife practices and then allowable harvests of animals.
Among houndsmen, like among people who deal lines, it's widely known that it's a very good meat.
But I was introduced to it that way.
There's a place, when I was living in Missoula, Montana, there's a place 20 miles east there called Rock Creek Lodge, and they're famous for having this big thing called the Testicle Festival in the fall, where, you know, after you castrate Steers, you know, people will fry up the nuts, right?
And so the testicle festival is this big.
It's kind of like turned into this big, or had turned into this kind of like biker festival.
But it was this big party, and it was centered around eating deep fried cow balls.
And we used to go down there all the time and go drinking.
And one time I was at that same place in the spring, and this guy had a pot of what looked like pulled pork, you know, with barbecue sauce.
And he had a bunch of buns out, and he was just giving it away.
And I was eating it.
And he was telling me how it was mountain lion meat.
And he was saying, you know, he's saying like, balls in the fall and pussy in the spring, you know, just to read mountain lion there.
And that was the first time I had mountain lion.
And then later I had a girlfriend who's from Wyoming.
And she one day is standing behind a guy in a, she's standing behind a guy in a hardware store who's buying a mountain lion tag.
And she asked him, what are you gonna do with all that meat?
And he didn't want it.
So she gave him her phone number.
And when he got his line, he gave us the whole damn thing.
And so we ate that whole mountain lion.
Then I came into other mountain lion meat and other ways.
And always enjoyed it to the point where I wasn't eating it because I had a moral obligation to eat what I killed.
I was going out of my way to get it.
Because I'd rather eat someone else's mountain lion than buy pork.
You're sort of acting like, when you condemn, you're sort of acting like, oh, I care about these issues, and I want to be out here, and I want to be articulating a perspective, and I know what's going on.
So you're putting yourself out as a person who has opinions of value, just to let your opinion be known.
Where you are, if you're eating meat, you're contributing all kinds of animal death.
What is your understanding of those lives and those deaths?
How is that not part of your reckoning?
Let's say I am happy.
That I got a bear.
That I will eat with my family.
Let's say I am happy about it.
Is it better for you that you're kind of...
Is it better to be sad about it somehow?
Is it better to be regretful or just ignore the fact altogether?
Or why is it not okay that I'm happy about what I eat?
I know the story of it really well.
I understand the history of wildlife in this country.
I don't want to say better than anybody, but damn sure better than most.
I know where we've been.
I have a good sense of where we're going in terms of American wildlife, what the challenges are for American wildlife, right?
I'm involved in this stuff on a daily basis.
I can know all that and I can see my place in it, right?
I can see what my actions are and whether my actions are helpful or hurtful for something that I care a great deal about.
And if I can know that Well, and get a deer, a bear, whatever, and have it be food, and find that I'm really happy to be involved in that, that somehow is off-putting to people.
But it's okay to be that I'm blind to it.
I have this nagging sense of guilt about it that I haven't reckoned with.
I don't really know about it.
And that's an acceptable position for some people to have.
It's really hard for me with people that are We're good to go.
I've got to find a way to engage with it, though, and I need to get a better understanding of it because the debate isn't going away.
I can't keep brushing it off as so ridiculous that it doesn't warrant my time because clearly it does warrant my time to understand that perspective.
I just haven't had anybody really give it to me in a good way.
I have people say, oh, but they were raised to be eaten.
I think there's some willful ignorance that's a part of people that eat meat but condemn hunting.
Willful in the fact that, like I said, they know that they're going to get a certain reaction out of people when they tweet about it on social media.
One thing, if you're talking about someone who's out there shooting things and not eating it, okay, I get it.
I'm with you.
If some guy's just shooting an elephant because he wants his tusks, I'm on your side.
I get it.
But if someone chooses to hunt an animal, fill in the blank, that might be a goat, might be weird to you, that they're eating this thing, but they're shooting this, it's an invasive species, it's actually very delicious, it's very edible, it's prized for its meat by some communities.
You don't make any sense.
You're doing this because you know that other people are ignorant about it as well.
And either you're ignorant because you've never bothered to look into it, or you've bothered to look into it and you're ignoring the nuance.
A variety of ways but a lot of things were a lot of island species.
This is just one way it happens where Invasive on islands would be introduced by seafarers, whalers, who would want to establish food resources along transoceanic routes so that you could put something there and come back and get it later.
Early whalers used to come out of the American Northeast, like all those famous whaling villages in New England.
They would go down and stop in and gather up tortoises that they could flip over in the hold of a boat and the tortoise would stay alive for months on its back.
You'd have a fresh meat resource.
As people came to understand scurvy and realizing that fresh meat It gives you enough vitamin C to avoid scurvy that you can get from dried meat because, you know, the way the vitamin C behaves through the cooking and drying process.
But, like, fresh meat you can keep from having scurvy.
Meat became, like, even more important then.
But people would come in and you'd, like, cut some sheep loose, cut some goats loose on an island and know that they're going to breed and build up a big population and that can be, like, a place you stop in and get food.
Yeah.
And other things get introduced in other ways.
And of course, animals move.
So if you have one island that has close proximity to another island, they can- Swim across.
Yeah, bump over.
And then it destroys native vegetation.
They trample birds' nests.
And so you have many cases where introductions of- Non-natives, particularly non-native grazing animals, non-native predators, will wind up causing a lot of extinctions of endemic species on islands and creates all kinds of problems.
And there's a problem, too, that I view, and this is coming from...
There's a problem where I think a lot of people have a very hard time empathizing with people who might be negatively impacted by wildlife as well in the question of the lion issue.
So if you're a rancher and you're running cattle in an area where you're losing a lot of cattle to wolves and grizzlies, people will look and be like, you better suck it up, buddy.
But it winds up being that you look and people are – they don't really want to hear about other people's problems if it doesn't jive with their understanding of what problems are.
You want to think that they were just looking at the details of it, but I think there's a suspicion that that person went into that knowing damn sure what they were going to do.
But you don't really know.
A lot of these arguments, they come down to technicalities.
Well, there's also the argument that the judge is probably trying to protect his own reputation because the amount of blowback that a judge would receive for allowing a hunt to go through is vastly different than blocking a hunt.
People who sue to block the delisting of recovered species, they'll masquerade as...
You know, ecologically conscious environmentalists, but they're just people who it's untenable to them.
They can't, they're never going to accept the idea that you're going to have human exploitation of this resource, right?
They masquerade as they have an environmental motivation, but it's not.
It's like it's an animal rights motivation.
There's a very – they have a sensitive ear in a certain federal court in Missoula, and so you'll see a lot of these cases around wolves and grizzlies.
They'll get that – they'll want it done through that court because they know they're probably going to have a friendly take on it.
I think it was a real – watching that happen, and that's been happening recently, I think it was a real travesty because – There's a couple things that happen culturally in areas where you create a lot of tension with people,
where there's people that are living amongst these things and they're looking for some level of relief and they want to see it go to state management and they might want to see the state exercise some control over where certain populations of large predators are spreading into.
And when it winds up being that their voices are not heard, And they feel that people from far away are really heavily influencing decisions that affect them on a daily basis.
It winds up creating a lot of animosity toward the species, too.
Think about what happened with the spotted owl, right?
The spotted owl, no one perceives the spotted owl as the owl anymore.
The spotted owl has become a symbol of federal overreach.
And you'll find that wolves, for a while, they become a symbol of And people stop liking the animals much, and it becomes this contentious creature.
And I think that we're going to head that way if we keep stepping in on wildlife issues with the mentality that we've been approaching, the wolf and grizzly issue, and the northern Great Lakes.
I think you're dealing with local and then you're dealing with national, right?
So the local people are going to have an issue with it because they're going to be impacted by it.
It's going to be directly impacting their life.
Dogs are going to be killed.
They're going to...
Take domestic cattle and all sorts of different things.
You're going to have real issues with the people that like to go elk hunting.
The populations have diminished rapidly.
But the rest of the country doesn't give a shit.
People in San Francisco, they don't give a fuck about it.
People in Chicago aren't impacted by it.
Especially if they don't have anyone in their family that hunts or anyone that has a background in hunting and they don't have a background in it themselves.
Republican-controlled House passed a bill on Friday to drop legal protections for gray wolves across the lower 48 states, reopening a lengthy battle over the predator species.
Long despised by farmers and ranchers, wolves were shot, trapped, poisoned out of existence in most of the U.S. in the mid-20th century.
By the mid-20th century, since securing protection in the 1970s, wolves have bounced back—well, that's not really exactly what happened—great lakes of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin as well, and the northern Rockies in Pacific Northwest.
That's sort of, but they're not talking about the reintroduction.
The idea of extinction and regional extirpation sickens me.
I do not believe in...
I do not believe that as a people, as a culture, we can justify or afford to remove species of wildlife.
From the landscape.
Native species of wildlife from the landscape.
Like I said, the idea sickens me.
I like to, you know, I like to have all native wildlife present on the landscape.
So I don't oppose it.
What I oppose is a thing that's happened now is getting Where we have populations that we agree, like, what will recovery look like?
And at what point, how will we manage all the different viewpoints that are coming in, all the different, like, interests of all these varied stakeholders, and at what point will we get in there and manipulate the situation that we're creating?
I just would move that in a different direction, where I think that recovered species...
Right?
In this case, we're talking about wolves and grizzlies.
I think that you should have that if you can do it in a sustainable way that doesn't have long-term deleterious impacts on the population, that they should be managed as a renewable resource.
I think that if you put something on the Endangered Species Act, and it goes under federal protection, and then when it reaches recovery, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says, it's recovered, it's time to hand it back to state management.
If a state then decides that they're going to do some limited harvest, particularly, let's say, even if they're focusing on areas where there's very high prevalence of human-animal conflict, and the state decides to do that in some minor way, As a way to service the needs of certain segments of their population that want something to happen.
I don't think that then an activist judge or environmental groups or animal rights groups should come in and be like, well, never mind.
We're going to pretend that they're not recovered now because we want to prevent the state from doing something that we think is unsavory.
Well, the thought process behind the people that support blocking the hunt is that if you leave these animals alone, naturally they're going to find balance.
And that the wolves will kill the elk until there's not enough elk for them to sustain their populations and the numbers of their offspring will dwindle and they'll get to some sort of a sustainable level.
Well, it winds up being that putting that, with that little bit of hunting pressure on them, really changed...
really changed their movements and changed the way they perceive human threats and they adjust to it pretty quickly.
Um, but it hasn't led to, you know, I think a lot of people look in those cases where it was pretty effective, you know, it was very effective to bring in, to bring in limited regulated hunting had the desired effect on how wolves are using the landscape and ways in which they were interacting and avoiding humans and I have no doubt too I have no doubt, too.
The situation will probably, in the northern Great Lakes, they had state management, lost state management.
It bounces back and forth.
You're going to eventually, I mean, it kind of depends on how the political winds blow, but you're eventually going to wind up with it there, and you're not going to see wolves vanish from the landscape.
You know, you're just not.
If grizzly bears wind up doing it, you're still going to see gradually expanding populations of grizzly bears despite the fact that they're using limited harvest to achieve certain management objectives.
Yeah, I agree with you, and I think the grizzly bear thing, you probably have the same sort of situation where the grizzlies will eventually think of people as a threat, and it'll probably save it for everybody.
Well, I watch that closely, though I don't feel it being another country, you don't have that sense of being that other country, you don't have that sense that you could influence.
It's kind of like watching something happen in a distant way, and you don't feel it as closely, and I don't know all the factors at play as well as I do here.
I like every encounter and every mix-up, and it's really...
It's like deeply complicated stuff, and when talking about these things, it's also...
They become...
Like everything, they become a proxy.
We're engaged in a debate about conflicting views on wildlife, and these animals step in to this debate, and the debate centers around them, and it winds up being bigger than a debate about Grizzlies.
Bigger than a debate about bison or buffalo, right?
Bigger than a debate about wolves.
It's just that these animals step into this ongoing dialogue about what is our relationship with the natural world?
What is our relationship with renewable resources?
What is our relationship with rural versus urban perspectives on how people should be around wildlife and be impacted by wildlife?
And so it's just this through line of us trying to sort out How to be good, responsible stewards of the landscape.
And that debate always centers around these things.
You could have a huge argument.
You could be in a lot of tension with your spouse, right?
And it springs up in a debate about how best to load the dishwasher or who is supposed to pick up the kid from school.
And it always finds a place to live.
And right now, this argument about American wildlife and what is our relationship to it has found its place to live right now around large predators.
And in Scotland, it's found its way to live around a feral goat on an island.
Yeah, now that I have kids, it's changed a little bit.
I view it a little bit differently.
But no, I still really love it, and I'm able to know that I'm missing my family while I'm out.
I'm able to know that and feel that pain.
And still know that I love what I do.
And I love talking about the things that I talk about.
And I view it as I'm sure you do.
It's like this tremendous privilege that you're able to...
Kind of grow up to have, you know, to have this, like, intense interest in a subject and this intense interest in a lifestyle and have the ability to, like, introduce people to all these different ideas, right?
So, yeah, I can have those two things simultaneous.
The kind of longing to be home more but enjoying being out.
I think if the longing to be home more would override that someday, it might change it.
But right now, I just have seen so many things that I'm happy to have seen.
And to think about a future of not accumulating those experiences at the rapid rate that I've accumulated them kind of bums me out a little bit.
Well, I think you're very important because there's a real lack of well-read, articulate people that support your position that are in the media.
I mean, you've got a lot of these shows that are on these...
The hunting networks, they appeal to a very narrow bandwidth.
And this narrow bandwidth is, you know, it's like your stereotypical idea of what hunting is to a lot of people.
So they'll flip through the channels, they'll watch that for a few minutes, you see someone hooting and hollering after they shoot something, and they get this bad taste in their mouth about it.
Whereas I tell people all the time, if you really want to get an understanding about what hunting is about, I always recommend your show.
Because your narration and your reverence for what you're doing and the animals and just your appreciation for how cool the experience is and how wild it is to, you know, for lack of a better term, just to be out there in nature...
And to be in the pursuit of these things and then to take these things, these wild creatures and feed your family and have it become a part of your life and to sustain yourself with it primarily.
You're giving a perspective that I don't think is available.
That I think is really important.
Because it's just...
There's so many people that are out there that are hunters.
That are smart, well-read people that feel frustrated.
Like, God, I wish everybody could see it the way I see it.
Yeah, I think it's important to point out that my love of hunting...
And of fishing and of living like a hands-on relationship with the natural world and living in close proximity to wildlife.
Like, my interest in that and desire to do that...
It's predated by a long ways my ability to talk about why I think that those things are important.
It was there.
It wasn't like I didn't grow up around that and then later started understanding the stuff and thinking about it and decided like, well...
The path for me then, considering what I know now, the path for me then to figure out hunting.
It was like, hunting was there.
I loved it.
I love it today.
And I just had the luxury through what I do for a living to spend a lot of time thinking about, well, why is that the case?
If this feels like harmonious to you and you can kind of like live in this and understand it and see how you fit into some greater...
You know, ecological picture, right?
If it does feel that way and that seems to be true, how is it that, like, why is that, right?
And it was pushing at those edges that I eventually developed a way in which I talk about it.
Now, I meet all kinds of people who live that same lifestyle that I lived growing up.
And when I talk to them, a thing that they appreciate is just that someone is articulating to them something that they felt to be true and knew to be true but just hadn't had the time or, you know, I didn't have the time or ability to really go out and express it.
I would never want to act like I certainly have not invented some way of thinking about it.
Aldo Leopold, Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, Throughout history, Jim Harris and Tom McGuane for contemporary writers, there's been a lot of people who have been saying and talking about and experiencing the outdoors in a way.
I haven't invented some new thing.
I'm working toward articulating and expressing something that has been in existence for a long time.
If people see negative stereotypes when they're on YouTube or see negative stereotypes on certain television shows, a lot of that stuff is self-feeding.
I think a lot of that stuff gets created because it does have a shock value to it.
And I would think that minus the camera, a lot of activities that people might feel are abhorrent might not even be taking place, where there is a hamming it up.
And there's also a thing that happens with people who feel under attack.
And in many ways, you know...
Hunters are under attack in a lot of ways in a lot of places, and I think that there's a way when you feel like you're being attacked, you feel like you're being pigeonholed, stereotyped, a response is to cram it right back down.
You're like, I'll show you.
And there's definitely that stuff.
You fall into this us against them.
Fuck them.
I'll show them how we really are.
And you get into this kind of dialogue thing.
It's a lot more painful, I think.
Maybe not more painful.
It's definitely more hard to be like, okay, let's talk about this for real.
If this is really something we need to discuss, let's dig in and discuss it.
And I think that a lot of people feel like that hunting feels like something that's natural to them.
They like to do it, and they don't feel the need to take the time to explain it.
And when pressed to explain it, they maybe kind of lash out.
And maybe lack the ability to look at it from an outside perspective because it's been a part of their life, their whole life, and they don't want to justify it.
Yeah, it's...
There's also the weird thing that as much as you can appreciate hunting and think of it as an ethical way to acquire meat, everybody can't do it.
We've got too many people.
It's untenable.
There's no responsibility for you to acknowledge that.
But it's something that gets brought up when people talk about how ethical acquisition of meat is really like either hunting or you'd have to raise something yourself and be absolutely aware or get something from a farmer who's You know, completely ethical from birth to death, and you have to be comfortable with that.
But the most ethical, in my opinion, is the hunting.
But then people always say, yeah, but everybody can't hunt.
Okay, but I can.
So if I can, what do I do about the fact that everybody can't hunt?
But no, certainly, everyone could enter into hunting.
The hunting game, you know, you could come in and hunt, it would just mean that you had a much larger pool of people after a limited resource, and that limited resource would be allocated in a different way.
You could have total participation, and it would just be that every person's slice of the pie would be much smaller.
But it's not like...
When a state looks at what's a turkey harvest that our state could support, they break the state up into a bunch of different units, they look at population trends, and they determine how many turkeys can we afford to harvest without impacting the turkey population.
If everyone in the state wanted a chance, you'd still wind up with the same number.
You'd wind up with the same number of turkeys being killed.
It would just be that you would have less opportunity.
You'd have to wait longer to get your turn.
So it's not that everybody can't, but it's not even really a point because everybody will not.
When I do the stuff that I do, like in writing a wild game cookbook, I'm doing two things.
In writing a wild game cookbook, I'm doing the main thing that I feel is the most important part of my job or the most important part of what I am is I'm having a conversation with people who live this lifestyle.
Right?
Like, those are people that I relate to.
Want to represent the world in a way that enhances their lives, provide education, and share my experiences with an audience of people that I recommend as a tribe that I'm part of, which would be like American hunters and anglers.
And I'm presenting them, like doing a cookbook, I'm presenting them best practices, how to live the best version of a wild game lifestyle that they can, and here's a way to think about and approach wild game.
But also, the secondary part of what I'm doing is presenting a world to people who might be unfamiliar with it.
And yes, do I have the hope that people will, like, say, read this book...
And then be like, man, I want to participate in this lifestyle.
That could mean as much as them walking down to the local river in their city and flipping over rocks and picking up crayfish.
But it is introducing them, bringing them into the natural world, and bringing them into engagement with nature.
And I do view and hope that that will happen.
Will it happen in some grand scale where we'll have hundreds of millions of hunters in this country?
No, that's not going to happen.
But I do think that it is important that we do have more people involved.
We, in large measure, we fund much of our wildlife work and management from law enforcement, disease research, on and on.
We fund that stuff through hunting and fishing licenses and through excise taxes on sporting goods equipment.
The more people that are engaged with this activity, I think the better it winds up being for American wildlife.
I agree, but the idea is that everyone can't do it, so the idea that you're saying that this is how you ethically acquire meat, this is not a solution for everyone.
There's almost no other solution than the solution that we're doing right now, unless they come up with some sort of a lab-created meat or whatever the fuck they're going to come up with next, which they are doing.
But yeah, I watch that kind of stuff, and I'm curious about it, but I don't take it as a personal insult by any stretch, man.
If everybody switched to lab-created meat, but I still had the ability to continue eating how I eat and living how I live, I don't view that as being a future problem.
They've introduced elk to a lot of different places and made sustainable populations that are now hunted.
And this is a beautiful thing, and I'd hope that they continue to spread and continue to do that.
Do you think it's possible that other game animals could be reintroduced to places where they would develop such a large population that we could sustain maybe even double the amount of hunters that we have now?
Elk are missing from 80 plus percent of their historic range in the lower 48. Right?
But we have, you know, at various times we have a quarter million of them living in Colorado or, you know, some states got 100,000, whatever.
You got now perhaps 20,000 living in Kentucky.
Those were all gone.
New Mexico at a point had zero.
Michigan, zero.
Kentucky, zero.
Pennsylvania, zero.
Elk, we're gone.
From the unregulated slaughter of the market hunting era when people could shoot meat and sell it into urban meat markets, right?
They eliminated American wild game before we figured out how to do it.
The word I keep using all the time now, which is like regulated harvest, regulated management.
So all that stuff was gone.
There were states where there was no deer hunting.
At the time of European contact, you had turkeys in 39 states.
It got whittled down to turkeys in 19 states.
You now have turkey hunting seasons in 49 states.
We've done a tremendous job of recovering wildlife Particularly a tremendous job to demonstrate what happens to an animal that hunters value and love and are able to use as a renewable resource.
Those species tend to really enjoy a lot of protections and they thrive because people are vested in their best interests.
So yeah, we've created turkey hunting seasons in 30 states.
So, yes, you can do things with wildlife and create resources.
The fact that we now...
We used to argue about what's going to happen with deer.
Are we going to drive deer to extinction in certain states or extirpation in certain states?
Now our big argument is what do we do with having so many deer?
Here it winds up being that you come up against social tolerances.
It's hard to...
When we fill in the map on elk, when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation looks at filling in the map on elk...
You've got to sell people on the idea that you're going to recover elk.
And there's a lot of resistance to recovering wildlife because a lot of stuff is inconvenient to have around.
They do a great job of brokering deals with states and finding places where a state maybe has a patch of habitat they think could support the animals and providing the expertise and financial support and all that stuff to bring in those things.
But generally you wind up where, because of settlement, In cities and suburban areas, we wind up with fewer and fewer places where we can go and do it.
So to really fill in the map on recovering elk across all that range where they're supposed to be, I don't know that we'll get there.
But we've gotten there in a lot of other stuff.
And there's like the Wild Sheep Foundation, right?
They're trying to do the same thing with bighorn sheep.
And people, to go in and say to someone who's running sheep on a mountain, domestic sheep on a mountain, and say, hey, no insult to you and no insult to your...
Four bears who've been sheep ranchers here for 120 years or whatever, but we would like to try to recover American wildlife and bring bighorns back to this mountain range, and that's going to require you moving these sheep out of the way.
There's a lot of suspicions and controversy, and it's an idea that a lot of people are uneasy with, but the problem—not the problem.
The thing is, it's like people who are— They have funding and have a thing where when land comes for sale, they buy it.
And the goal of buying up the land is to turn it back into wildlife habitat for native wildlife.
And the controversy around it stems from the fact that some people...
I don't like to see areas that supported traditional economies in rural areas like cattle ranching and to see these areas returning to a wild landscape.
It's threatening to people.
From the hunter perspective, there's a lot of places that people used to be able to hunt, and the American Prairie Reserve is allowing hunting to go on, and people are coming in and saying, well, they need to assure us that hunting will be allowed here in perpetuity.
And because we're suspicious about what's going on.
So there's a lot of, like, you hear about it in so many ways, but the core mission is something that most people, when you look at it, the core mission is something that most people are going to look at and be pretty comfortable with.
Be like, okay, you're a guy or an organization, you have money, and when a ranch comes up for sale, you buy it on the open market.
The seller names his price.
You pay the price.
It's now your land.
If you choose to not run cattle but want to have bison roam around on it, why should I care?
Oh, the long-term play is that over time you would assemble a chunk of the Great Plains that is far bigger than Yellowstone National Park that supports a thriving population of bison, wolves, grizzly bears, You know, in a park-like setting.
But it doesn't come without, you know, it doesn't come without its own bits of controversy.
And, yeah, again, it's like, it's a thing that everyone has an opinion about.
There was a version, they don't like to talk about, there was a version of this called the Buffalo Commons that happened long ago where a There was a social scientist named, I think it was Frank Popper, by the last name of Popper, and he was looking at demographic patterns on the Great Plains.
And he was observing the ways in which the areas on the Great Plains where the population was shrinking.
So there's a lot of counties on the Great Plains where through various long-term agricultural trends and other issues where the human population is rapidly shrinking, rapidly declining.
And this sociologist brought up this idea that if these trends continue, You're going to have this rare case in which a landscape sort of accidentally rewilded, okay?
Where everyone left, which is not a story we're familiar with when we look at what happens to wild lands across the world, right?
The general story is like people move in and wildlife moves out.
So this idea became like the Buffalo Commons, okay?
And it just so happens that that That idea kind of centered around this area around Jordan, Montana, right?
Because you have large tracts of federally managed public land up there.
You had a lot of ranch land that wasn't that expensive and people could buy it.
And that was like the seed of the idea.
I think that now there was such an unpopular notion because it had to do with like economic decay, right?
And shrinking towns and reduced resources for public education and all the kind of stuff that comes from having an economy that's not thriving.
But over time, that Buffalo Commons idea kind of segued into this American Prairie Reserve idea, and it happened to be sort of centered around the same chunk of land.
Bill Kittredge, a Western writer who deals with a lot of landscape and environmental issues, was talking about...
In the wake of the Buffalo Commons idea and Popper's work was talking about going to Jordan, Montana and talking about the Buffalo Commons is a great way to get your ass kicked.
Because it's this idea like if culturally like the agricultural producers and ranchers were celebrated and they made a civilization out of the wilderness and they brought in animals and created economies and created communities and for someone to now say you know thanks but no thanks bro.
We'd rather go back and eliminate your presence on this landscape.
And we don't, in fact, value what you did.
And we're going to try as hard as we can to undo what you did.
Because we now view it as that your people did the wrong thing.
And we're going to correct that wrong.
And to some people, it's like this insulting idea.
To a lot of other people, they celebrate it.
Because they're like, hey, if it's for sale and I buy it, It's mine.
If you're a part of it, you have a deep history in it, you understand that your perspective of ranching is from a rancher, whereas people on the outside conveniently can be ignorant about it and go, ah, fuck those ranchers.
My perspective on wildlife has been it's a thing that you care about, you work to conserve, You want to have it on the landscape, and you also eat a lot of it.
However, I would really love it if there was a restaurant where you could go, where you could buy really well-prepared wild game dishes, like a really well-prepared bear.
Really well-prepared mountain lion.
Well-prepared, you know, fill in the blank with the animal.
I just think that would be a fascinating place to eat.
You know, and maybe if they could do something like that, it wouldn't be that you could actually sell the meat.
Yeah, well, no, not that case, but like, you know, you can buy, but then it's, that's a whole other conversation around the captive cervid industry, but yeah, you can buy elk that are raised in a ranch environment, right?
Yeah, I mean, as long as you're getting it from New Zealand, you're not dealing with CWD and a lot of the other issues that they're dealing with in America, right?
Yeah, but the whole New Zealand thing, that was an interesting thing that you brought up on your podcast recently, how New Zealand, there have been talks about actual eradication.
And one of the arguments that hunters always use is, hey, we're controlling the population.
This is a good service that we're providing.
And then the government comes along and says, well, how about we take care of that?
Because you have to, but they do that because they're trying to protect certain ecosystems and keep a lot of native plant species from going to extinct and fragile environments and all kinds of reasons.
There's no death, right?
There's no predator control on them, which is huge.
And in a lot of places, just a completely inadequate amount of hunting.
And the thing that hunters have always been able to say in Australia and New Zealand is they've been able to, in a culture where, particularly in Australia, a culture that seems to be not as friendly toward hunters as they are in America, you're able to say, well, we're participating in wildlife control.
And then later when people come up and they talk about, well, you know, we're going to get serious about this and we're going to really actively, with the goal of totally eliminating these species, people are justifiably made uneasy about it.
Because it's a thing that they've come to appreciate and rely on and a resource that they want to use.
And now they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute!
I don't want to kill them all.
I do like them being here.
And it winds up putting you in this weird, like, it winds up putting you in a weird rhetorical position.
But I understand where they're coming from.
Because if you could live there and you could agree that we're going to have some small number of them on the landscape and we're going to use those and we're going to hunt those and eat those, I also, if someone said, hey, they're gone now, I would be bummed.
I hunt turkeys.
I was saying earlier, we had turkeys in 39 states at the time of European contact.
We have turkeys in 49 states now.
I hunt turkeys in a lot of those 10 states that didn't historically have turkeys and that do now.
And I generally have a perspective of trying to preserve native wildlife and trying to control non-natives because I don't want to wind up with sort of a, this like monolithic wildlife pattern where these same super resilient adaptive species such as Canada geese and rats and white-tailed deer take over the entire country.
Yes, I want the variety, so I'm generally antagonistic toward non-natives.
But if someone came and said, okay, you know what, we're going to actually go in and kill off all the turkeys in those 10 states that historically didn't have turkeys, I would say, really?
Really?
Because I've kind of grown to really like those turkeys and they're not really causing a problem.
And I think that some people, you know, if you're a New Zealand hunter, an Australian hunter, I don't think anyone's arguing there should be no control, but I think that they're like, let's find a balance.
I think we can find a balance where there's some availability of animals on the landscape since they've been here since the beginning of our, you know, experience on this continent.
If there's some availability of animals, let's find like a reasonable compromise here.
Dude, I always like, again man, I always instinctively, when I hear stuff, I instinctively lean in from the perspective of...
I instinctively lean in from the perspective of the hunter and angler.
And I love all these little debates, and I think that they're all really helpful and interesting.
But no, I feel like I can recognize their pain.
And I can also look far away and laugh at the absurdity of it.
I even had a guy write me from Australia and say, this is a real bummer, because it exposes us To the thing where we got to say like, yeah, you know what?
I wasn't really just doing it because I'm trying to help the ecosystem by eliminating non-natives.
I actually like having some of them around and now I just got to come out and say that and that's a bummer.
Well, I mean, not for all the things that you're talking about, no.
And I don't look to...
There is talk of...
A lot of people are looking to...
Are pushing for this idea that in areas that have too many whitetail deer, there's people who are really pushing to reopen up the sale of wild harvested deer.
Yeah.
As a solution to deer overpopulation.
But for me, from my perspective and from the damage that was caused by unregulated wildlife slaughter, I'm very, very uneasy with it.
And I do not picture myself ever coming around in support of the idea that we would start marketing wild cervids.
And that's something that I'm also just uncomfortable with in general, the commodification of wildlife.
And I think about resource availability.
For hunters.
And I think that a lot of people who enjoy access to certain areas now to go hunting, to hunt for themselves and their family, that the minute you made it be that those deer had a dollar value attached to them, that there would be a lot less opportunity for people who choose to hunt to feed themselves.
Because it would all of a sudden be like, why would I let you come in or allow you to come in and use a resource when I'm just going to do my best now to collect it up And sell it.
And so, again, for aesthetic reasons, for what it would mean for hunters, for our perception of our relationship with our resources, I'm extremely uncomfortable with it.
It's an idea that keeps popping up because we have, in some areas...
And I hate to say that, I hate to talk about, oh, there's too many deer, there's too much this, too much that, because by whose measurement?
But in some areas we really do, especially when you start getting into issues like Lyme disease prevalence and ticks and starvation and just the possibility of other disease outbreaks and the spread of certain wildlife diseases.
There's some areas that by any reasonable measurement we have too many deer.
I really do appreciate that you do it because I think it's my favorite podcast to recommend to people that want, if I want them to get an understanding of hunting without Even watching it, just listening to you talk.
Because you have so many guests on where you might not even be talking about hunting.
You might be talking about biology.
You might be talking about history.
It's just a great podcast, and you're a great guy for the job.
It releases this week on November 20, but it's available for pre-order everywhere.
And it's broken into a bunch of chapters where it has big game, small furred game like rabbits, hares, squirrels, upland birds, waterfowl, freshwater fish, saltwater fish, shellfish, and crustaceans.
Reptiles and amphibians, so all your bullfrog stuff is in there.
And you want to talk about a species that's spreading all across the country.
I hunt them with a variety of ways, mostly a frog gig.
I don't care where you live.
Like, there's a lot of people that live in a city like, dude, I'd love to go out and get some wild game, but I can't go get an elk.
Like, how do I do that?
You could be out gigging frogs at night and no one would even know.
Frog gigging, crayfish grabbing.
We talk about all this kind of stuff in the book.
And it explains everything from how to break down and process and freeze stuff.
And then for everything, there are many recipes.
And the recipes walk you through how to use the entire thing.
So for your whitetail deer, everything from the tongue to the rear shank.
How, like, specific recipes on how to do it, and also just general best practices and guidelines around how to handle the ingredients, and then all the stuff around all the substitutions.
So there's no such thing as, like, an elk heart recipe, right?
It's like how to, like, handle game hearts, whether it's mule deer, whitetail, whatever, like how to approach a heart, and an attitude toward wild game that is not, that's cut-specific, not species-specific.
And with fish, too, I'm not comfortable with the idea of, like, this is a walleye recipe, or this is a bluegill recipe, but how to handle, like, varieties of freshwater fish and, like, what kind of recipes you can use that are interchangeable, depending on where you live and what you use, and includes all that.
Yeah, and the article got a lot more love when it was that some squirrel hunter died from eating squirrel brains than it did when the later subsequent pieces came out where everybody was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Then you've got to go to the tree squirrel zone map, right?
Right.
But in your state, jackrabbits are open.
For instance, your state, jackrabbits are managed as non-game, meaning there's no bag limit and open year-round.
Cottontails, snowshoes have different management.
In a lot of states, pine squirrels are red squirrels, which aren't commonly hunted, but they're more regarded as things that get into people's houses, but they're not hunted for meat.
They'd be listed as a non-game species, but fox squirrels and gray squirrels would be as a game species.
So in New York, I think the bag limit when I was living there was six per day.
But, yeah, most places they have them, and they're managed, and you go out and buy the small game license for $12 or whatever, get your hunter safety, get yourself a.22 or a shotgun, and you can become a squirrel man.
He talks about his father riding out ahead of him with a horn of fire.
In the end, he relates the dream.
It's in the book and it's in the movie where the Tommy Lee Jones character is describing a dream in which they're riding through a snowstorm and his father rides ahead with a horn of fire.
And I always wondered how many people heard that and had no idea what he was talking about.
But what a common practice used to be is you take a horn, buffalo horn, cow horn, and it's hollow because it grows off a protrusion of the skull called the horn core.
And you pop the horn off and it's hollow.
And what people would do is when you left your campfire in the morning, you would fill that horn with embers and cap it.
But there'd be a little pinhole in it just to let a little bit of air in there so it could continue to smolder.
And you'd carry that horn all day full of embers.
And at night, to start a new fire, you would dump the horn out and rekindle your fire.
So when he talks about his father riding out ahead of him with a horn of fire, what that's meant to say is that he knew his father would be waiting out ahead of him with a fire burning.