An answer to meat rationing in the US...

Discussion in 'USA' started by brndirt1, May 8, 2010.

  1. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Senior Member

    I ran across an interesting statistic as per the "wild game" taken in the first full year of war for the USA. The U.S Fish and Wildlife department, in 1942 recorded that 255,404,055 POUNDS of wild game was taken and processed (not counting fish).

    This of course doesn’t count any that was taken illegally (poached). It reported that in 1942-43 there were 20,000,000 licensed hunters and freshwater fishermen.

    See:

    Popular Mechanics - Google Books

    pp. 72-77 and continued on p.150.

    The title of the article is; Free Meat-come and get it!
     
  2. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    I ran across an interesting statistic as per the "wild game" taken in the first full year of war for the USA. The U.S Fish and Wildlife department, in 1942 recorded that 255,404,055 POUNDS of wild game was taken and processed (not counting fish).


    The population in the USA in 1942 was 134 million in round figures so it works out to less than 2 pounds per person per, per year.

    The next question:

    Do you know the composition of the "Wild" game?

    Cheers

    Geoff
     
  3. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Senior Member

    The population in the USA in 1942 was 134 million in round figures so it works out to less than 2 pounds per person per, per year.

    The next question:

    Do you know the composition of the "Wild" game?

    Cheers

    Geoff

    By "composition" do you mean which beasts? If so it ranged from rabbit and wild pigs (three variaties) on the lower end; up to moose and elk on the large end of the scale. It also included bears believe it or not, as well as muskrat (marsh rabbit) which could be taken without license. The "breakdown" of the animals is given in the article by number of each on the first page of the article.

    Something to remember when dealing with the population numbers in the USA at the time, when that census was taken (1940) the rural population was the large one, the urban the smaller of the two. More people lived outside of cities than in them, and wild game was the normal suppliment to animals slaughtered for personal use.

    The article was directed toward those "non-hunters" in the cities as a way to increase their meat access.
     
  4. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    I realise the "city" was the target however interesting nonetheless. To what degree did the city folk take up the offer?

    Were turkey varieties included here? I have read that their numbers were quite small around the turn of the century but do not know what their numbers were in the 40's.

    Cheers

    Geoff
     
  5. canuck

    canuck Closed Account

    The consumption of wild game in rural Canada was pretty much a common practice with or without the war. I think the U.S. experience would be much the same. The war came shortly after the great depression and many families were accustomed to supplementing their diets with whatever fish and wildlife they could find (legal or otherwise).
    My father, who was born in 1930, grew up in a small northern town. He described how he and the other young boys in town ranged far and wide in search of rabbits and grouse. Bringing game home to the family was part of his 'chores'. They also snared rabbits as it was more cost effective. His dominant memory was being totally accountable for making good use of the rare .22 cartridges he was given. Dad never wanted to return home having expended shells with no results. He said it focused the mind and made for very accurate shooting!
     
  6. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Senior Member

    I realise the "city" was the target however interesting nonetheless. To what degree did the city folk take up the offer?

    Were turkey varieties included here? I have read that their numbers were quite small around the turn of the century but do not know what their numbers were in the 40's.

    Cheers

    Geoff

    Between the turn of the century and the 1940, a combination of the "Roaring Twenties" (hunting for sport), and the Great Depression (hunted for food) the population of the large game bird (wild turkey) had been reduced from the millions down to between 30,000 to 100,000 birds.

    The Depression had seen them really over-hunted, and a three year moratorium on their harvesting was started in 1940 (I think). Of course that doesn’t mean some weren’t poached, but they weren’t included in the list of "wild game" for that reason.

    By the beginning of this century (21st), it is estimated that the population of the bird is now somewhere above 6/7 million! Conservation and extensive "planting" in non-turkey habitat has saved them from extinction. But, by the time that article hit the stands the turkey was "off the table" and while the term didn't exist yet, was an "endangered species".
     
  7. Steve G

    Steve G Senior Member

    Interesting, if somewhat tangential thought occurs from all this; Englands rabbit population was virtually wiped out by Myxomatosis in the early fifties.

    Just wondering how the loss of all that food source would have correlated to national food availability after official Rationing?
     
  8. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    It also included bears believe it or not


    Coming at this comment from another direction - North American bears DO actually make good eating! Check out any of the good histories of the American West. But it depends on WHICH kind - black or brown. One (the Brown Bear I think) is very much a scavenger, fattened on berries, wild honeycomb etc. - while the Black Bear is far more of a hunter/predator....so it's a much "stronger" meat, sometime foully so.

    The only problem is - the Black bear is a vicious, fast, fiercely strong moving mountain of a predator with a hair-trigger temper, unlike the more placid Brown. The Brown Bear may be far better eating - and there's a LOT of eating on him....but an unwary hunter - or even one that's wary, just not quick enough on the trigger! - is just as likely to end up with a BLACK bear pounding down on him, as they tend to range in the SAME areas! :lol::p And in that circumstance he's just as likely to end up as the Bear's rations! :rolleyes: Maybe MORE so....all that fur/teeth/claws/flies and a body weight 3 or 4 times that of a human can charge faster than a man can run!
     
  9. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Englands rabbit population was virtually wiped out by Myxomatosis in the early fifties.

    I thought it was the early sixties, around the time I was born???
     
  10. Steve G

    Steve G Senior Member

    Check it out, Phylo; This stuff's my subject like WW2's yours ;)
     
  11. canuck

    canuck Closed Account

    Coming at this comment from another direction - North American bears DO actually make good eating! Check out any of the good histories of the American West. But it depends on WHICH kind - black or brown. One (the Brown Bear I think) is very much a scavenger, fattened on berries, wild honeycomb etc. - while the Black Bear is far more of a hunter/predator....so it's a much "stronger" meat, sometime foully so.

    The only problem is - the Black bear is a vicious, fast, fiercely strong moving mountain of a predator with a hair-trigger temper, unlike the more placid Brown. The Brown Bear may be far better eating - and there's a LOT of eating on him....but an unwary hunter - or even one that's wary, just not quick enough on the trigger! - is just as likely to end up with a BLACK bear pounding down on him, as they tend to range in the SAME areas! :lol::p And in that circumstance he's just as likely to end up as the Bear's rations! :rolleyes: Maybe MORE so....all that fur/teeth/claws/flies and a body weight 3 or 4 times that of a human can charge faster than a man can run!

    You may have that reversed Phylo. The Black Bear is a more of a scavenger and the Grizzly (Alaskan brown) is the hunter.
    I have eaten Black Bear meat.....ONCE! Even then it had to be parboiled and drained twice to remove the oils and wild taste. Unless my palate is abnormal I highly doubt that you will see bear meat on too many menus any time soon.
    We have thousands of the beasts roaming around here so the opportunities are endless. They love garbage!
     
  12. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    They love garbage!


    Yep, I've seen the films of them breezing though those child-proof tops! :)

    Does that make the average modern child LESS intelligent than a bear....or would the modern bear population make Charles Darwin deliriously happy???:lol:
     
  13. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Senior Member

    Coming at this comment from another direction - North American bears DO actually make good eating! Check out any of the good histories of the American West. But it depends on WHICH kind - black or brown. One (the Brown Bear I think) is very much a scavenger, fattened on berries, wild honeycomb etc. - while the Black Bear is far more of a hunter/predator....so it's a much "stronger" meat, sometime foully so.

    The only problem is - the Black bear is a vicious, fast, fiercely strong moving mountain of a predator with a hair-trigger temper, unlike the more placid Brown. The Brown Bear may be far better eating - and there's a LOT of eating on him....but an unwary hunter - or even one that's wary, just not quick enough on the trigger! - is just as likely to end up with a BLACK bear pounding down on him, as they tend to range in the SAME areas! :lol::p And in that circumstance he's just as likely to end up as the Bear's rations! :rolleyes: Maybe MORE so....all that fur/teeth/claws/flies and a body weight 3 or 4 times that of a human can charge faster than a man can run!

    Bears can run down a horse, a human doesn't have a chance in hell, if they want to kill and eat you, they will.

    Both the Black and Brown bears of north America are omnivores, and both (generally) have a predominately vegetarian diet. Well over 80% in both species. The Blacks however tend to be more "advantage" takers when it comes to scavenging carcasses, while the Browns are generally hunters more than scavengers (both will scavenge) especially older kills in the case of the Blacks.

    The Blacks do less digging for root crops than the Browns do, as their paws aren’t designed to dig deep, so they prefer to eat young shoots and fruits off the trees and shrubs above ground. The Blacks eat more honey and the associated insects than the Browns do, while both love honey the Browns are less likely to attack a honey bearing tree with determination, something to do with numbers of hairs per square inch of hide I think.

    The Browns range in color from dark brown to blonde, while the Blacks range from dark brown to black. In some instances a Black can be larger than a Brown, but generally speaking the Browns are the larger of the two groups.

    As to which "tastes" better when consumed, it would probably differ as much as to when the bear was "harvested" as anything. In the late fall both species are "fattening up" for hibernation, and should be roasted I would assume just to get rid of the excess fats, if taken in the spring they might very well be extremely "lean" meat.

    Here is a link to extensive "bear meat" recipes:

    Bear Recipes

    I myself have only had one encounter with bear in a meal, a stew similar to that listed. Didn’t love it, didn’t hate it. Reminded me of moose for some reason.
     

Share This Page