How far did they go for meat?

[Joe Yanta]

:hmm: I have often pondered about our early pioneers on how far they would go for meat.

If you concider about all the necessities a hunter would have to carry just to fire and maintain his weapon and adding a haversack with a little food. Further if they were to be out more than one day it would have been nice but not necessary to have a small treking tarp for shelter. We are now talking about a conciderable bundle to be toting around with.

If deer size game was scarce, and if they wanted it, they would travel greater distances.

Even if they did travel say... 10 miles or even greater distances from home they would have to carry the meat back. And of course I am looking at this from my rather soft physical conditioning perspective, but I dont think I would want to carry or drag a deer size animal that far.

I would think that our early hunters hunted close to home, mostly small game. They would certainly take every opprotunity to harvest a deer close to home if that opprotunity presented itself. But, I dont think they would travel too far.

What are you thoughts on this? Or anyone hear or read of great distances?

Joe

 

[3 stinky dogs]

Could they have used a horse or other beast of burden ? or maby they had a small party that would help Carey all the deer they took ?

 

[roundball]

I've had related thoughts about the deer that Boone and company took when they were on their long hunting trips for deer hides, they used pack horses or mules for supplies and to pack out the hides, etc.

And while I'm sure they probably ate venison a lot on the trip, if they shot several deer a day for the hides, they must have left a lot of carcasses laying around rotting

 

[Joe Yanta]

Horses would have certainly increased the distances they could travel. But I dont think everyone had horses in the late 1700's. Probably more owned horses in the 1800's.

Joe

 

[LRB]

Horses were more common than you may think. Any longhunter or market hunter had to use horses, or in some cases canoes. The so called long hunters were after hides, not meat. A deer hide was worth about a dollar, hence the name "buck" for a dollar. If you had no horse, you had no way to get your hides home and to market. As far as other folks on the frontier, how do you think they got there with all their household goods and belongings. They, in most cases, did not carry all their stuff on their backs. They used oxen or horses and wagons.

 

I just finished re-reading Faragher's book on Boone, The Frontiersman by Eckert and Hunters of Kentucky by Belue. I know for certain in one and/or perhaps all of them distances of 20-30 miles were given, especially during the Siege of Boonesborough. 10-20 miles was not uncommon as game moved and migrated for one reason or another the same as it does today. Horses certainly weren't uncommon and they also travelled a lot on foot. I don't believe we can truly think in the manner the pioneers of any era did. The thought process may be the same but the information processed is completely different.

The three above mentioned books are great sources for lots of info on the period and places they're concerned with. Obviously they aren't worth spit for the mountain man or plains period. There are certainly resources available for that study.

Vic

 

[Norskie]

Hey, Roundball, I thought they were drying the meat for later use, or for barter.

 

[Joe Yanta]

The last couple of days I have doing some research on horses in colonial american. The best sourse of information I found was the online site of International Museum of the Horse.

Interestingly, the first true american horse was the Narragansett Pacer bred in the state of Rhode Island. G. Washington owned and raced one. And it is reputed that Paul Revere rode the Narragansett Pacer on his famous ride.

The following is from IMH "Early roads were merely Indian paths, only passable on foot or horseback. Horses were scarce in colonial America, so an ingenious system of sharing a horse was devised based on "ride and tie". One masn started out on the horse while the other began walking. After a set distance the rider would dismount and tied the horse to a secure post" the rider would then began walking. When the person who started out walking came to the tied horse he would then ride the horse forward, passing the original rider and after a set distance would stop and secure the horse and begin walking again. They would repeat this process. Each man got to ride some, and the horse got rested between riders.

What I gather is, that the poorer you were, the greater possibility of not having a horse. The poorer you were more the likely you were not living in town but moving into the wilderness to to lead a life of sustenance off the land.

Still an interesting ponderance :hatsoff:

Joe Yanta

 

[mikelange]

There is some sound logic in the reasoning you quote (from the horse source), but one fact that is rather hard to argue away, and that has already been stated, is that moving to the wilderness was a prospect of many days and miles, carrying all the goods, tools, and food supplies one's family owned. At the very least a pack horse was called for. At the end of the road, one would put in at least a meager corn crop, and, while a smallish field could be worked without a beast of some sort, certain aspects of the process would be backbreakingly difficult without said beast to provide brute muscle.

I am going to venture a guess, here, based on my habit of applying common sense and what I know about people today (a habit that has gotten me into some trouble in the past and will no doubt do so again). Many authorities on things of a modern nature are outside their realm of knowledge when they start looking at the past. They apply what they think and believe to a situation in which their process of thought and belief simply didn't exist. Basing the idea that there were relatively few horses owned by settlers of the wilderness, on the fact that the nearest thing to roads that existed were trails used by previous settlers, Indians, or large game, is to a large degree making the assumption that people of the period in question felt about their animals as animal lovers of today do. They didn't. A horse was a beast of burden and labor, period. It might not have been quite as crucial a "tool" as one's gun, knife, or axe, but for a man with a family or with much to carry over a long distance it was pretty much a necessity. Keeping the critter well-fed, rested, and in otherwise good health amounted to the same thing as keeping one's rifle clean and blades sharp. Affection for the beast had very little to do with it. There were exceptions to the rule, of course, at both ends of the spectrum -- that's human nature -- but by and large a person treated and regarded his animals as merely another type of important equipment.

All the foregoing is merely my opinion, and I concede in advance the possibility that I might be wrong and that everyone and their dog has a perfect right to disagree.

 

[oomcurt]

What you said make perfect sense to me. You're right...today most "experts" seem to base thier logic on today's style or standards. When I was a little kid we had relatives that farmed...believe it or not...back in the late 40's they did not have electric power...they also used horses to farm. Yeah, they worked themselves dang near to exhaustion every day but...they were healthy and happy. Funny thing, even with today's cars and all there are folks that think driving over 30 miles to work is insanity. Hah. Maybe that is true for folks in the east. You get out in the west it is a whole different story. I drive over 50 some odd miles round trip just to shoot at the club I belong to. Where we are moving to...it is 120 miles round trip to the nearest K Mart. It is about 137 miles to the nearest large city..and that city has a population of about 30,000. Bottom line..distance is relative. In one's head, really.

 

[mikelange]

Not to go off-topic, but I moved out here 12 years ago from Page, AZ. It was a four-to-five-hour round trip to go to a mall or a movie theater that showed more than one flick. I know exactly what you mean.

 

[Joe Yanta]

You make an interesting point Mongrel. I certainly do not beleive everything I read in the liberal newpapers, or see on TV. Nor do I beleive everything on the internet sites. It just makes an interesting ponderance.

When I moved to Colorado in 1949 with my family we traveled out of the foothills 20 miles to the outskirts of Denver to buy groceries. That was really a big deal, of course I only got to go about one in 4 months.

Joe

 

[Wehrmacht]

Way down here in the Deep Southeast the Creek Indians had a steady trade with merchants in Charleston,S.C. supplying small Spanish horses which they stole in Spanish Florida.This breed of horse is still here in Florida,and is known as the Florida Cracker Horse.

The Creeks also traded deer hides to Charleston merchants to the tune of over 300,000 hides a year for a number of years.Before it was over the deer population was so depleted Creeks were going as far as the Ohio River to the north, the Florida Keys to the South and westward into East Texas to get what they needed to meet contractual requirements. Few folks relealize it,but the Creeks so butchered the deer population that it didn't really recover here in the Deep South until good game management techniques started in the 1950's.The meat that was needed was taken,and the balance left to rot in the woods.So much for all that manure about Indians being sensitive about Nature and being in balance with the Natural World,etc.Firearms,iron pots,iron knives,axes,hatchets etc.changed all of that!

On the average a dried deer hide weighed about two pounds,so overall the annual kill was over half million pounds.Hides,as well as all of the necessary gear for a hunt,were moved on horseback.Settlers in the Carolina Backcountry and Colonial Georgia eagerly traded with Creeks for stolen horses.