Re: Re: What to Hunt?

From: John Hughes <nysalor_at_...>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:47:00 +1000


David:

> We might be arguing semantics, but my recollection from ecological
> anthropology classes is that small game is the *least* often hunted.
> It is of no prestige (thus women sometimes hunt it), and you get far
> more meat for the same effort if you can bag a big creature like a
> deer. One reason there's more prestige with a deer is that you get to
> share the meat with everyone else (i.e. everyone else now owes you).
>
> It's certainly possible that, because there aren't as many deer to
> find, hunters most often return home with small game. But that's not
> what they set out to hunt.

That's exactly the crux of it! Small game are mainly hunted by women and children, and they are, in most ecological zones, by far the most reliable suppliers of protein. Large game has the prestige, and its usually the provence of men, but in most communities -certainly in sustainable communities - its a moderately scarce resource, and the men don't bring home a large kill every day. (4 wheel drives and telescopic rifles they have not). As far as anthropology goes, the insights of the 'Man the Hunter' school in the sixties - which discovered just how much *leisure* time and how well-nourished hunting populations could be - was balanced in the seventies and eighties by the 'Woman the Gatherer' school. This body of research showed, once you stopped following the men around and believing their stories, that it is actually women who bring in the bulk of food through hunting small game, digging up burrows and, most importantly, gathering vegetable products. They also spend more of the day working and childminding. Children 'practicing' hunting also bring in a lot of small game. From there, predictably, the discussion went all feminist/marxist along the usual party lines.

Obviously there's tremendous variation from locale to locale, but the picture is overwhelming as described above.

John

Powered by hypermail