Hunting does not have to be outrageously expensive. My dad & brothers hunt quite frequently. But, my dad has a friend who owns the land they hunt on, so they get the use of the land for free. I do like venison - its usually leaner than beef, but has about the same taste (some older ones can be tough or gamey, but there are ways to cook where it comes out fine). Really, its a great source of organic meat!! Deer in this area cause quite a few wrecks (some fatal), so hunting to bring down their numbers actually keeps people safe.
Now this might seem even more extreme, but some friends of ours hit a deer & it was killed instantly. They called my dad, who drove out there & was given a tag by the highway patrolman to take the deer home. It was a large one, and practically filled up the freezer. My dad gave the meat to some families that needed it. It was free, just took his time to process it. I think this scenario will become more & more common as times get tougher.
I think poaching will also increase...and illegal hunting. My uncle owns several acres. He shoots deer all the time, but rarely has tags for them (although it might be legal on your own property if they are a nuisance).
As for raising animals, rabbits are very easy to raise, they grow quickly, the meat is good, and the furs can be used. They do multiply quite quickly, lol. My father used to raise them, and the family ate them like chickens (about the same amount of meat). It would definitely be easier to raise rabbits than to hunt wild ones (or live-trap some wild ones, breed, and raise them from there...start out for free!) If I had to have meat, I think I would choose deer & rabbit if I had no other choices.
It is absolutely worth it for us to eat game meat.
My husband hunts every year, and I am taking the class to get my Hunter Safety certificate this winter for next autumn so that I can join him.
By the time he's paid for the license and the butcher's fee, the meat from an antelope comes close to being $1.50/pound. The meat from an deer or an elk is much less per pound because they are much larger animals, and the costs are averaged into a larger number of pounds.
Game meat is organic, and in the case of many animals (deer, antelope, elk, etc.) very low fat. Most wild animals aren't fatty - they haven't been bred to be the way we've bred cows and pigs. If I shop carefully, I certainly can find cheaper meat, but even at its most expensive, I couldn't find meat of the quality of game meat for less than $1.50/pound.
No one I know buys a gun every year to go hunting; guns aren't disposable. If we had to factor in a hunting rifle... it would add a few dollars to the overall cost averaged over many years. They can be had for a hundred dollars or so, and are good practically forever and can usually be resold for a pretty high percentage of what the original cost was.
Ammo is maybe $5.00 for 5, which is often a few years worth. One cartridge to "zero" the rifle in the fall, one to kill the animal. The ammo cost most years is in the $2-3.00 range. Most hunters take great care to to carefully aim and kill with one shot.
Time-wise, one is looking at an hour or so at the public range to "zero", then from between half a day to a whole day to hunt, field dress, gut, and drop to the butcher. If you add in the time to cut up and package on your own, it would be cheaper, but would tack on several hours to the job. Also, the butcher has tools the rest of us don't have, which allows him to get a better yield. If the animal is elk, the area must be scouted ahead of time, and often requires camping overnight. All of this is done on weekend around here, so that adds to the amount of time spent, but doesn't really cost anything monetarily.
Here's my take on the question. Factory automation and outsourcing, by reducing the wage share in overall income, seriously compromised consumption expenditure in the 1980's. Ronald Reagan responded by outsourcing traditional fiscal policy to the banking sector, specifically with the passage of the Secondary Mortgage Market Act in 1984, making securitization possible. The banking sector took the bait and multiplied questionable sub-prime loans. All in all, the policy was more successful than Reagan could have ever imagined as it touched off a housing bubble that further increased indebtedness as home equity balloned. Everything was honky-dory until the housing bubble burst, which is why the bankking sector is now stuck with $7 Trillion of bad debt.
The true culprit was factory automation and outsourcing. Reagan's outsourcing of fiscal policy and the fallout were but consequences. The banking sector is not to blame, nor is Reagan, although traditional fiscal policy would have been, in my view, a better choice. As it turns out, the current bailout of the banking sector can be seen as a form of delayed fiscal policy, the only problem being that it fails to address the current problem!
I'm with Laura on this one -- lentils for me! I don't have the means to hunt, and I wouldn't eat too much fish due to health concerns. I do have skills I could barter -- like sewing and mending.
That being said, my area has a serious problem with Canada geese, and pigeons are a delicacy in some parts of the world... Who knows?
If you are hunting or fishing to provide food for your family, first research the consumption guidelines for your region. Animals higher on the food chain or fish that are part of longer food chains have more toxins concentrated in their flesh. This is the case even for regions without point sources of pollution, since toxins are spread through the air and water easily. Too many toxins can be especially dangerous for pregnant women or those planning to become pregnant.
My Mario Kart Wii game had these scratches on it, and wouldn't read...after reading the other posts, I tried Pledge, only I buffed it off after a few seconds. I did this twice, one after the other, and while the scratched didn't dissappear, the game worked!
I have the same problem, I have a Sony Ericsson s500i which also has an internal antenna and no jack. I live in australia and I have never seen a jack like that ony anyone's phone. Is it an American thing?
Hunting for food seems perfectly normal for me in the context of stretching out food supplies: my grandmother told us grandkids all about hunting for rabbits, squirrels, etc. during the Great Depression and WWII (during meat rationing).
Personally, I'd much rather fish than hunt. Overall, it's just easier. And as long as you live fairly near somewhere that you can go fishing, the time commitment is less than going hunting.
Re: femmeknitzi - People will go 'up north' to Upper Michigan to 'hunt' by doing that, only they throw out apples. They're called 'AppleKnockers' and not considered real hunters.
RE: the actual post
Depends.
First of all, your essential equipment is warm clothing, if needed, and a weapon and ammo. Everything else is optional, and most other useful stuff is cheap - rope, tarps, etc. There's a lot of nonessential stuff out there though.
If you live around a lot of people, you're going to be mostly stuck with small game. You'd likely be best off trapping to get the most food out of the least work and expense. Or better yet, raise them. There's a reason people farm instead of hunt. If you live somewhere less populated, like aforementioned Upper Michigan, you can probably find a lot of big game. At that point, talent will come into play a bit.
Is it a good way to feed a modern family? Depends on how you go about it, where you live, the laws there, and how many other people around there have the same idea.
Personally, I think everyone should have at least one skill they can barter with. If times were really tough and I needed the meat, I don't have the skill to go get it myself, but I know people who do. I would happily trade a quilt or sweater for some venison. It's also useful in everyday life. I've traded a few hours of harp playing for a gourmet dinner for two in my home by a professional chef. I've traded a custom made frock coat for a few hours of a massage therapist's time. It's universally useful.
I have been pondering this for about the last year. Notice I didn't say "acting" upon it. I grew up in a rural area in Kansas where excellent hunting and fishing were within walking distance. Growing up, I spent a great deal of time with some of my cousins that were avid hunters and fishermen. I became something of a hunter and fisherman myself by the time I was 20 years old. At 41, I am an engineer in a city; hunting and fishing are within an hour's drive.
Running limb lines in the summer time can produce a freezer full of catfish. Hunting deer for food only takes some warm clothes and a rifle; a license would be helpful too. A person only needs the camo, scents, calls, etc. when they are bow hunting and need to draw the deer in close. I wonder if I can dig up skills that are 20 years old good enough to require only a minimal cash investment such that it is "profitable."
I told my wife something that is very clear: If I get laid off, I'm buying a gun. I am certain that I will stop pondering and start acting on these thoughts. I have no problem shooting rabbits, squirrel, quail, pheasant, deer, etc. I also have no problem skinning, gutting, and cooking them.
Also, this winter I'll be figuring out what I need to do to get a garden growing in the spring. I'm on the lookout for a cheap aluminum jon boat for hitting the rivers and lakes.
I took all these things for granted growing up. Now, some 20 years later, I realize that there can be great pleasure in sharing and eating food that I have grown, caught, or shot myself.
I think it depends how much you put into it, like any other activity. I come from an area where lots of people hunt, and my boyfriend's uncles all hunt. So we get a lot of free venison.
If we wanted to go out with them, it would be free/very cheap - just gas money and maybe a round of beers afterward. If it were a regular thing we'd probably buy some ammo too.
But that's because a farmer gets a certain number of on-their-own-land hunting licenses every year, and we could get one just for asking. Also borrow a gun. If you had to pay for those things, I don't see how it would be worth it - you'd do better buying meat under the table from an experienced hunter.
I would imagine that even in Washington State there's a way to sign up for the roadkill list, to come pick up a carcass for just the gas/effort/time it takes.
If you butcher the animal yourself, you'll save a ton of money picking up roadkill. But you have to know what you're doing. Otherwise you need to pay a butcher, too.
I see a lot of people fishing for subsistence, but it's not a good idea in the long term, at least around here - every state in the Midwest has mercury and lead contamination in all their wild fish, and city lakes are terribly contaminated.
I filled out the form and almost submitted it, but then I remembered that I am working on cutting down on the clutter in my life, and that I wouldn't read most of the articles anyway.
I've thought about it too, but for different reasons. It's amazing how much wildlife is in the Los Angeles urban and suburban areas. Rumor has it some of it is transplanted. I've seen chickens and rabbits in urban areas, most likely escapees from home farming.
There's also a quite a few squirrels, doves, and possums spread across residential areas. While it may be illegal, with some traps and a pellet gun I could put food on the table about once a day simply by looking out the window.
As for real game, such as deer or fishing. I wouldn't count on it for exactly the suspicions raised above. Time is money and food is still pretty cheap depending on what you're eating.
Now on the other hand, there are many people who love to fish off the docks in LA, and having dined on fresh shark, I can tell you there's some very good eating out here. If you've got the time, hunting and fishing are a great way to relax while looking to put food on the table.
While I'd be happy to raise hens for eggs (I wish I had the space to do so in the city!), the killing part of meat makes me really squeamish which is why I don't eat any of it. I know it's not for everyone, but vegetarian diets can be mighty frugal. I've always turned to my good friends lentils and rice in times of financial hardship.
This has been on my mind as well. I'm such an avid animal lover and advocate that I think I would have a really hard time with the act of looking an animal in the eye and taking its life.
However, I grew up in the suburbs so for me, meat pretty much comes from the grocery store so I've known for a long time that's its something I need to experience. And I do love cooking with wild game.
Here in Oklahoma, most people hunt for food security. For some its a sport, for some its a necessity. I reap the benefits of excess backstrap from time to time, which is nice.
I don't know a lot about hunting--but I have to say, what I've learned recently makes it sound a bit less like a sport. Most of the hunters I know sit in a deerstand, set out corn and wait. To me that sounds less like hunting and more like target practice. As long as the meat is used, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, but it sounds boring to me and I'm curious if other people hunt differently.
My mind is definitely open to trying it and I recognize the importance of paying my dues for all the meat I eat and work for myself. But in the end I'll probably stick to sharing with my hunter friends and being thankful that I don't HAVE to hunt for my food.
I would certainly not put money in a meter if there was already sufficient time left from the previous parker. Me putting in money on top of that just enables the next guy to park free on my dime.
I don't hunt, but I would really like to learn. My only purpose would be to get the meat, so the cost would have to be reasonable, otherwise I wouldn't bother. I agree that hunting for the table is a great deal more honest than buying shrink-wrapped pork chops. I do find the idea of killing something simply to put a trophy on the wall rather disgusting though.
Since I grow a lot of my own food, keep hens for eggs, and bake a lot of pretty decent bread, I would also consider bartering for venison or other game. How I wish there were wild boar in my part of the world!
I used to fish, but it never paid off because I suck at it. But, I live in a city. I could see it being worth it if you're in an area with a lot of fish, and you can tolerate eating them. A lot of the plentiful fish are mackerel, carp, and other "garbage fish." Personally, I love mackerel. Carp, not so much. I don't like trout. If you're fishing out of necessity, you have to learn to eat different kinds.
I suspect shooting for fowl and small animals is one way to get meat on the cheap. That and (illegally) gathering killed deer and freezing it.
To weigh in on your question about hunting and how it works out economically, I would say that "it depends". A neophyte hunter will more than likely not contribute substantially to the family economy in the first several years he/she attempts to bring home wild game. Big game hunting is a skill that one must develop, and as you mention, there is an initial outlay of cash to get into the sport, as well as licenses and fees to consider. If one factors in the cost of driving, and the cost of processing if one is not butchering it himself, hunting quickly becomes a hobby with a negative cash flow the first few years.
Having said that, my spouse hunts and usually manages to harvest a deer, an elk, and an antelope each year. We have started butchering the meat ourselves which saves substantial dollars. Because of his success, we rarely if ever buy meat at the grocery store. In that respect, we probably do net a positive return on his hobby.
Also, he has discovered that he can sell the cape (and horns) of some animals to taxidermy schools, collectors, and others. He recently received $30 for an antelope cape. Not a princely sum, but it helps offset the cost of gas.
What *could* be economically feasible, in my opinion, is hunting rabbit or squirrels. This type of hunting is often more diverse in options, and the game are more plentiful. Also, the learning curve is shorter. While big game hunting is somehow considered to be more aristocratic, small game hunting could provide cheap protein at a lower cost. Can the "ewwwww" factor be overcome? That is a hurdle that most people would struggle with in our "shrink wrapped meat" culture.
We are in foreclosure with ING and have a new sale date due to filing chapt 7 which is now Jan 20, 2009. However I read a news account that ING is delaying foreclosure sales until March 2009. But it was not clear if that will include we who are in foreclosure now with eminient sale dates or what?
In my middle 70's and with very limited SS income after total loss of our savings investment we are now considered "low income" and at $1,300 per month for two that now makes our ability to pay nil.
What is there for ING to work with when we are so limited now? So we would like to know whether they are postponing our case into March. I called Mitigation Dept. but they have some delays going on and said call and try later.
Hunting does not have to be outrageously expensive. My dad & brothers hunt quite frequently. But, my dad has a friend who owns the land they hunt on, so they get the use of the land for free. I do like venison - its usually leaner than beef, but has about the same taste (some older ones can be tough or gamey, but there are ways to cook where it comes out fine). Really, its a great source of organic meat!! Deer in this area cause quite a few wrecks (some fatal), so hunting to bring down their numbers actually keeps people safe.
Now this might seem even more extreme, but some friends of ours hit a deer & it was killed instantly. They called my dad, who drove out there & was given a tag by the highway patrolman to take the deer home. It was a large one, and practically filled up the freezer. My dad gave the meat to some families that needed it. It was free, just took his time to process it. I think this scenario will become more & more common as times get tougher.
I think poaching will also increase...and illegal hunting. My uncle owns several acres. He shoots deer all the time, but rarely has tags for them (although it might be legal on your own property if they are a nuisance).
As for raising animals, rabbits are very easy to raise, they grow quickly, the meat is good, and the furs can be used. They do multiply quite quickly, lol. My father used to raise them, and the family ate them like chickens (about the same amount of meat). It would definitely be easier to raise rabbits than to hunt wild ones (or live-trap some wild ones, breed, and raise them from there...start out for free!) If I had to have meat, I think I would choose deer & rabbit if I had no other choices.
It is absolutely worth it for us to eat game meat.
My husband hunts every year, and I am taking the class to get my Hunter Safety certificate this winter for next autumn so that I can join him.
By the time he's paid for the license and the butcher's fee, the meat from an antelope comes close to being $1.50/pound. The meat from an deer or an elk is much less per pound because they are much larger animals, and the costs are averaged into a larger number of pounds.
Game meat is organic, and in the case of many animals (deer, antelope, elk, etc.) very low fat. Most wild animals aren't fatty - they haven't been bred to be the way we've bred cows and pigs. If I shop carefully, I certainly can find cheaper meat, but even at its most expensive, I couldn't find meat of the quality of game meat for less than $1.50/pound.
No one I know buys a gun every year to go hunting; guns aren't disposable. If we had to factor in a hunting rifle... it would add a few dollars to the overall cost averaged over many years. They can be had for a hundred dollars or so, and are good practically forever and can usually be resold for a pretty high percentage of what the original cost was.
Ammo is maybe $5.00 for 5, which is often a few years worth. One cartridge to "zero" the rifle in the fall, one to kill the animal. The ammo cost most years is in the $2-3.00 range. Most hunters take great care to to carefully aim and kill with one shot.
Time-wise, one is looking at an hour or so at the public range to "zero", then from between half a day to a whole day to hunt, field dress, gut, and drop to the butcher. If you add in the time to cut up and package on your own, it would be cheaper, but would tack on several hours to the job. Also, the butcher has tools the rest of us don't have, which allows him to get a better yield. If the animal is elk, the area must be scouted ahead of time, and often requires camping overnight. All of this is done on weekend around here, so that adds to the amount of time spent, but doesn't really cost anything monetarily.
hey tal email me- i feel the same exactly and my situation seems exactlythe same
hey tal email me- i feel the same exactly and my situation seems exactlythe same
Here's my take on the question. Factory automation and outsourcing, by reducing the wage share in overall income, seriously compromised consumption expenditure in the 1980's. Ronald Reagan responded by outsourcing traditional fiscal policy to the banking sector, specifically with the passage of the Secondary Mortgage Market Act in 1984, making securitization possible. The banking sector took the bait and multiplied questionable sub-prime loans. All in all, the policy was more successful than Reagan could have ever imagined as it touched off a housing bubble that further increased indebtedness as home equity balloned. Everything was honky-dory until the housing bubble burst, which is why the bankking sector is now stuck with $7 Trillion of bad debt.
The true culprit was factory automation and outsourcing. Reagan's outsourcing of fiscal policy and the fallout were but consequences. The banking sector is not to blame, nor is Reagan, although traditional fiscal policy would have been, in my view, a better choice. As it turns out, the current bailout of the banking sector can be seen as a form of delayed fiscal policy, the only problem being that it fails to address the current problem!
I'm with Laura on this one -- lentils for me! I don't have the means to hunt, and I wouldn't eat too much fish due to health concerns. I do have skills I could barter -- like sewing and mending.
That being said, my area has a serious problem with Canada geese, and pigeons are a delicacy in some parts of the world... Who knows?
If you are hunting or fishing to provide food for your family, first research the consumption guidelines for your region. Animals higher on the food chain or fish that are part of longer food chains have more toxins concentrated in their flesh. This is the case even for regions without point sources of pollution, since toxins are spread through the air and water easily. Too many toxins can be especially dangerous for pregnant women or those planning to become pregnant.
Here's a link to the EPA fish advisory site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/states.htm
My Mario Kart Wii game had these scratches on it, and wouldn't read...after reading the other posts, I tried Pledge, only I buffed it off after a few seconds. I did this twice, one after the other, and while the scratched didn't dissappear, the game worked!
To those who want to reduce clutter, you can always donate the magazines to your doctor's office. :)
I have the same problem, I have a Sony Ericsson s500i which also has an internal antenna and no jack. I live in australia and I have never seen a jack like that ony anyone's phone. Is it an American thing?
Hunting for food seems perfectly normal for me in the context of stretching out food supplies: my grandmother told us grandkids all about hunting for rabbits, squirrels, etc. during the Great Depression and WWII (during meat rationing).
Personally, I'd much rather fish than hunt. Overall, it's just easier. And as long as you live fairly near somewhere that you can go fishing, the time commitment is less than going hunting.
Re: femmeknitzi - People will go 'up north' to Upper Michigan to 'hunt' by doing that, only they throw out apples. They're called 'AppleKnockers' and not considered real hunters.
RE: the actual post
Depends.
First of all, your essential equipment is warm clothing, if needed, and a weapon and ammo. Everything else is optional, and most other useful stuff is cheap - rope, tarps, etc. There's a lot of nonessential stuff out there though.
If you live around a lot of people, you're going to be mostly stuck with small game. You'd likely be best off trapping to get the most food out of the least work and expense. Or better yet, raise them. There's a reason people farm instead of hunt. If you live somewhere less populated, like aforementioned Upper Michigan, you can probably find a lot of big game. At that point, talent will come into play a bit.
Is it a good way to feed a modern family? Depends on how you go about it, where you live, the laws there, and how many other people around there have the same idea.
Personally, I think everyone should have at least one skill they can barter with. If times were really tough and I needed the meat, I don't have the skill to go get it myself, but I know people who do. I would happily trade a quilt or sweater for some venison. It's also useful in everyday life. I've traded a few hours of harp playing for a gourmet dinner for two in my home by a professional chef. I've traded a custom made frock coat for a few hours of a massage therapist's time. It's universally useful.
I have been pondering this for about the last year. Notice I didn't say "acting" upon it. I grew up in a rural area in Kansas where excellent hunting and fishing were within walking distance. Growing up, I spent a great deal of time with some of my cousins that were avid hunters and fishermen. I became something of a hunter and fisherman myself by the time I was 20 years old. At 41, I am an engineer in a city; hunting and fishing are within an hour's drive.
Running limb lines in the summer time can produce a freezer full of catfish. Hunting deer for food only takes some warm clothes and a rifle; a license would be helpful too. A person only needs the camo, scents, calls, etc. when they are bow hunting and need to draw the deer in close. I wonder if I can dig up skills that are 20 years old good enough to require only a minimal cash investment such that it is "profitable."
I told my wife something that is very clear: If I get laid off, I'm buying a gun. I am certain that I will stop pondering and start acting on these thoughts. I have no problem shooting rabbits, squirrel, quail, pheasant, deer, etc. I also have no problem skinning, gutting, and cooking them.
Also, this winter I'll be figuring out what I need to do to get a garden growing in the spring. I'm on the lookout for a cheap aluminum jon boat for hitting the rivers and lakes.
I took all these things for granted growing up. Now, some 20 years later, I realize that there can be great pleasure in sharing and eating food that I have grown, caught, or shot myself.
I hope this works out - never did receive the free book offer for 'What to expect when your expecting' that I signed up for last year. :(
Thanks for the tip!
I think it depends how much you put into it, like any other activity. I come from an area where lots of people hunt, and my boyfriend's uncles all hunt. So we get a lot of free venison.
If we wanted to go out with them, it would be free/very cheap - just gas money and maybe a round of beers afterward. If it were a regular thing we'd probably buy some ammo too.
But that's because a farmer gets a certain number of on-their-own-land hunting licenses every year, and we could get one just for asking. Also borrow a gun. If you had to pay for those things, I don't see how it would be worth it - you'd do better buying meat under the table from an experienced hunter.
I would imagine that even in Washington State there's a way to sign up for the roadkill list, to come pick up a carcass for just the gas/effort/time it takes.
If you butcher the animal yourself, you'll save a ton of money picking up roadkill. But you have to know what you're doing. Otherwise you need to pay a butcher, too.
I see a lot of people fishing for subsistence, but it's not a good idea in the long term, at least around here - every state in the Midwest has mercury and lead contamination in all their wild fish, and city lakes are terribly contaminated.
I filled out the form and almost submitted it, but then I remembered that I am working on cutting down on the clutter in my life, and that I wouldn't read most of the articles anyway.
I've thought about it too, but for different reasons. It's amazing how much wildlife is in the Los Angeles urban and suburban areas. Rumor has it some of it is transplanted. I've seen chickens and rabbits in urban areas, most likely escapees from home farming.
There's also a quite a few squirrels, doves, and possums spread across residential areas. While it may be illegal, with some traps and a pellet gun I could put food on the table about once a day simply by looking out the window.
As for real game, such as deer or fishing. I wouldn't count on it for exactly the suspicions raised above. Time is money and food is still pretty cheap depending on what you're eating.
Now on the other hand, there are many people who love to fish off the docks in LA, and having dined on fresh shark, I can tell you there's some very good eating out here. If you've got the time, hunting and fishing are a great way to relax while looking to put food on the table.
While I'd be happy to raise hens for eggs (I wish I had the space to do so in the city!), the killing part of meat makes me really squeamish which is why I don't eat any of it. I know it's not for everyone, but vegetarian diets can be mighty frugal. I've always turned to my good friends lentils and rice in times of financial hardship.
I love Free magazines! Thanks!
This has been on my mind as well. I'm such an avid animal lover and advocate that I think I would have a really hard time with the act of looking an animal in the eye and taking its life.
However, I grew up in the suburbs so for me, meat pretty much comes from the grocery store so I've known for a long time that's its something I need to experience. And I do love cooking with wild game.
Here in Oklahoma, most people hunt for food security. For some its a sport, for some its a necessity. I reap the benefits of excess backstrap from time to time, which is nice.
I don't know a lot about hunting--but I have to say, what I've learned recently makes it sound a bit less like a sport. Most of the hunters I know sit in a deerstand, set out corn and wait. To me that sounds less like hunting and more like target practice. As long as the meat is used, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, but it sounds boring to me and I'm curious if other people hunt differently.
My mind is definitely open to trying it and I recognize the importance of paying my dues for all the meat I eat and work for myself. But in the end I'll probably stick to sharing with my hunter friends and being thankful that I don't HAVE to hunt for my food.
I would certainly not put money in a meter if there was already sufficient time left from the previous parker. Me putting in money on top of that just enables the next guy to park free on my dime.
I don't hunt, but I would really like to learn. My only purpose would be to get the meat, so the cost would have to be reasonable, otherwise I wouldn't bother. I agree that hunting for the table is a great deal more honest than buying shrink-wrapped pork chops. I do find the idea of killing something simply to put a trophy on the wall rather disgusting though.
Since I grow a lot of my own food, keep hens for eggs, and bake a lot of pretty decent bread, I would also consider bartering for venison or other game. How I wish there were wild boar in my part of the world!
I used to fish, but it never paid off because I suck at it. But, I live in a city. I could see it being worth it if you're in an area with a lot of fish, and you can tolerate eating them. A lot of the plentiful fish are mackerel, carp, and other "garbage fish." Personally, I love mackerel. Carp, not so much. I don't like trout. If you're fishing out of necessity, you have to learn to eat different kinds.
I suspect shooting for fowl and small animals is one way to get meat on the cheap. That and (illegally) gathering killed deer and freezing it.
To weigh in on your question about hunting and how it works out economically, I would say that "it depends". A neophyte hunter will more than likely not contribute substantially to the family economy in the first several years he/she attempts to bring home wild game. Big game hunting is a skill that one must develop, and as you mention, there is an initial outlay of cash to get into the sport, as well as licenses and fees to consider. If one factors in the cost of driving, and the cost of processing if one is not butchering it himself, hunting quickly becomes a hobby with a negative cash flow the first few years.
Having said that, my spouse hunts and usually manages to harvest a deer, an elk, and an antelope each year. We have started butchering the meat ourselves which saves substantial dollars. Because of his success, we rarely if ever buy meat at the grocery store. In that respect, we probably do net a positive return on his hobby.
Also, he has discovered that he can sell the cape (and horns) of some animals to taxidermy schools, collectors, and others. He recently received $30 for an antelope cape. Not a princely sum, but it helps offset the cost of gas.
What *could* be economically feasible, in my opinion, is hunting rabbit or squirrels. This type of hunting is often more diverse in options, and the game are more plentiful. Also, the learning curve is shorter. While big game hunting is somehow considered to be more aristocratic, small game hunting could provide cheap protein at a lower cost. Can the "ewwwww" factor be overcome? That is a hurdle that most people would struggle with in our "shrink wrapped meat" culture.
We are in foreclosure with ING and have a new sale date due to filing chapt 7 which is now Jan 20, 2009. However I read a news account that ING is delaying foreclosure sales until March 2009. But it was not clear if that will include we who are in foreclosure now with eminient sale dates or what?
In my middle 70's and with very limited SS income after total loss of our savings investment we are now considered "low income" and at $1,300 per month for two that now makes our ability to pay nil.
What is there for ING to work with when we are so limited now? So we would like to know whether they are postponing our case into March. I called Mitigation Dept. but they have some delays going on and said call and try later.