Hunting to Eat

[Rick]

I was just reading an article on how the indigenous folks in Gabon hunt. It seems they string up nets on the edge of the forest and then drive animals into the nets. Small game gets its neck broken with a machete while larger game might be killed with a shotgun, if they have a shell. It seems every available man and boy is involved in a hunt and the meat is equally divided for everyone in the village.

Several things struck me about the article. We talk a LOT about bugging out and living on our own while some of us talk about bugging in and rebuilding the community. It takes a lot of energy to hunt and the more that join in the better the chances of success. A group synergy forms enabling a few to achieve what each one on his own would not be able to. For example, while some are driving the animals toward the net, some members are waiting to dispatch the animals.

The use of nets to entrap the animals uses less resources than shooting and less energy than chasing. The village dogs are even used in driving the animals toward the nets thereby reducing the energy expended by the people.

Finally, the village does not take any more meat than they are capable of cooking, eating or smoking before it spoils. And they use just about every part of the animal.

In most villages around the world hunting is a team effort. I'm sure that time has proven that hunting parties are much more effective. Just one more thing to consider in the over plan of what to do if something should happen and you need to decide if you should but out or in.

[BENESSE]

Just one more thing to consider in the over plan of what to do if something should happen and you need to decide if you should but out or in.

How do you mean Rick?
Don't mean to go simple on you, just trying to understand how to relate it to where I am.

[COWBOYSURVIVAL]

We have all been hunting and not even seen our intended prey...however pretty rare I couldn't have at least gotten a family size meal out of a hunt. Not sure if I agree that it is better in a group....

[Pal334]

I think the concept is at least worth thinking about and keeping in the old "tool bag". It has obviously worked from the start of recorded history and is apparently still working. If you find ourself in a group situation, seems to be the most economical use of resources

[pocomoonskyeyes]

That's why in some places in the US, Dog hunting Deer is allowed(Vegetation so thick you couldn't see it walking just a few yards away)they(Dogs) make the "Drive" and hunters are prepositioned along the expected route. It can be very effective if done right. Stand hunting in those same areas is VERY "iffy" at best,assuming you have done all your preseason scouting,etc. Stalking in these areas.... You had best be better than the Apaches were at disappearing,more silent than wind on an owls wings,as odorless as pure Mountain air. Otherwise you are just out walking in the woods....with a gun.

Yeah I see where hunting in a group,and working a drive is better than hunting alone... A lot better. Better to have a little deer meat than an empty belly, or a rabbit, or coon or whatever.

[panch0]

Those folks probably also plant and harvest to add to their diet.

[Winnie]

We still use a long net method here for rabbits, hares and foxes. It's very a very efficient form of hunting and you can be selective about what is taken for the pot. It's best with more than one person though, and dogs are a great help. I've done it once or twice many years ago with a friend.

[your_comforting_company]

I, personally, do not hunt for sport. I'm not after a trophy, I'm after feeding myself and my family.
Normally, 2 or 3 of the men-folk will go out into the woods, usually before first light on a new moon. (for this example I will use our normal 2-man hunting party). One of us will position ourself on the expected flush route and the other will move slowly from the opposite end of the hunted area in an attempt to flush the animal toward the stationary member.
using this technique we harvested 9 deer last year between 3 hunters and two of us still have meat in the freezer.
This technique is ancient and the natives used similar tactics with the buffalo, and deer.
Though they used natural barriers and traps and did not waste time nor resources on "nets" and other type traps. (why would you if you could run them to a cliff edge and not fire any arrows?) I don't have the book handy, but there was a 4-book set from time life books that detailed many of the tactics used by natives. I didn't realize the efficiency of party hunting until a few years ago.
Once the hunt was conducted, the entire tribes would come to the "trap scene" and everyone would systematically butcher the animals, some would move the meat, some move the leftover parts to a mass burial site, and others back at camp would continue processing.

This does add a lot of perspective to whether a person could make it on their own vs. in a group. I have been hunting many times right by myself and can honestly say that I have only brought home food twice in this way, but, like I said, last year 3 of us managed to get food for 3 families for a whole year, sharing the bounty of the hunt equally.

I say a small group is quite effective, while singular hunting will leave you hungry if you are only stalking big game. small game, on the other hand, seem to be less elusive and more curious, i.e. squirrels, coons, coots, etc. and you stand a better chance of procuring a meal if you just 'lower the bar'.

[Rick]

How do you mean Rick?
Don't mean to go simple on you, just trying to understand how to relate it to where I am.

So many folks are loners. Probably just in their nature. They want to fall back to some secluded spot and survive by themselves or just their immediate family. I'm just saying there are advantages to working in a community environment. As PAL pointed out, hunting in groups has been going on forever.

Not sure if I agree that it is better in a group....

I don't know if it's better or not but you clearly expend less energy in a group since the work is divided among the members. And expending less energy when in a survival situation is what it's all about.

[Rick]

Good post YCC. Utilizing natural barriers be it cliff, rock wall, briars, water, etc., is an excellent use of your environment to your advantage.

[pocomoonskyeyes]

If I had a choice, I would rather be part of a community. I think it would increase the efficiency of a survival scenario. Just 2 people "halves" the work". 1 Person could work on "camp" while 1 gathers food.Add more people it gets easier. Yes there are more mouths to feed, but more hands to help contribute. If it's either Stew or going hungry,then it's a simple choice really.

[rwc1969]

Small groups are much more efficient at hunting and living in general. It would be extremely difficult for an individual to make it in the wild, too many things to do on a daily basis for one person to make it. Whereas, a group would have a much easier time. In fact, if the SHTF the groups would survive and the loners would parish. I am a loner of sorts so that's hard to take, but it's the reality of the situation.

It would be very easy for a group to drive deer into a lake and then pummel them to death at leisure. Especially when another part of that group is home gettin the fire ready, out gathering veggies, etc..

[BENESSE]

Small groups are much more efficient at hunting and living in general. It would be extremely difficult for an individual to make it in the wild, too many things to do on a daily basis for one person to make it. Whereas, a group would have a much easier time. In fact, if the SHTF the groups would survive and the loners would parish. I am a loner of sorts so that's hard to take, but it's the reality of the situation.

Another important benefit of a group is security. To me it rates just as high.

[Sourdough]

I don't know if it's better or not but you clearly expend less energy in a group since the work is divided among the members. And expending less energy when in a survival situation is what it's all about.

How much work are you going to get out of FAT & LAZY People. Most people know less about "WORK" than any subject knowable to humans.

[2dumb2kwit]

How much work are you going to get out of FAT & LAZY People. Most people know less about "WORK" than any subject knowable to humans.

That brings up a good point.
What if you're in a small group, and one of the members won't pull their weight? Do you kill them? Do you make them leave the group? If they won't work hard in the group, do you think they will survive without the group.

[COWBOYSURVIVAL]

I am now firmly convinced I am in the right area to sustain my family by hunting and foraging alone. I can't walk out my back door without literally tripping over edible wildlife. I am also convinced I am the loner that will have to do the work. But you know everytime I get the opportunity to do this work I enjoy every second, so nah! I ain't gonna need a net. I would like to watch you guys give it a go though, so let me know when you guys are ready to try it! LOL

Ricks hollaring to Poco Get the Net! Get the Net!

[BENESSE]

There are so many variables, the biggest being, what SHTF scenario you find yourself in and where you are when it happens.

Given the choice, I'd rather be part of a like-minded group than alone.
But then, I'd rather be alone than part of a bunch of lazy lumps and loose cannons. You all know it's bad enough having to deal with them when all's well.

[Rick]

How much work are you going to get out of FAT & LAZY People. Most people know less about "WORK" than any subject knowable to humans.

Henry Ford once said, "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Of course, both of you may have been hanging around the wrong crowd.

CS, I find it hard to believe that you think you can harvest more food or as much food alone and a group can. Isn't that similar to saying you can move more dirt, build a shed faster, dig a ditch deeper, by yourself that if a group were involved?

[crashdive123]

That brings up a good point.
What if you're in a small group, and one of the members won't pull their weight? Do you kill them? Do you make them leave the group? If they won't work hard in the group, do you think they will survive without the group.

I think that it would be important to find something that they are able to do. They may not have the physical stamina to help with the hunt, but there may be many other chores that they are good at. I gathered a big bag of acorns the other day. After shelling, soaking to get out the tannins and grinding - I will use it as a four. Very time consuming process, and with somebody else in a group it would make much lighter work of things. As in any wilderness living situation - it is hard work - and there is a lot of it. Some will be more capable of certain tasks than others.

[2dumb2kwit]

I agree with you, crash, but I didn't mean someone who was unable to, I meant someone who "chose" not to do the work. (As in, just plain lazy.)