Why I Eat Wild Meat

A veteran hunter and nature writer shares his belief that traditional hunting of wild meat draws us closer to nature and is a physical and intellectual challenge that fulfills one of our fundamental instincts.

| February/March 2012

David Petersen Hunting

Self-described "campfire philosopher" David Petersen is a former editor for MOTHER EARTH NEWS. He is the author of nine books, including the 20th anniversary edition of "Racks: A Natural History of Antlersand the Animals That Wear Them." David and his wife, Caroline, live in a self-built cabin in the Rocky Mountains, where they grow and hunt their food.


David Petersen has a long history with MOTHER EARTH NEWS magazine. He is the former Western Editor, and built his Colorado cabin from an early set of our building plans for a pole barn. He first met Edward Abbey when he interviewed him for the magazine. Check out his 9 wonderful books at David Petersen Books. 

The out-of-doors is our true ancestral estate. For a mere five thousand years we have grubbed in the soil and laid brick upon brick to build the cities; but for a million years before that we lived the leisurely, free and adventurous life of hunters and gatherers. How can we pluck that deep root of feeling from the racial consciousness? Impossible!
— Edward Abbey

As one who makes no secret of his life preferences, I am often asked why I prefer to eat wild meat almost to the exclusion of domestic. It’s a fair question, to which I hope I have fair answers — beginning with health and nutrition.

By any comparison with the factory-produced, chemical-drenched, fat-laden pseudo-meat that too many Americans grow obese and sick from eating today, wild meat — fish, fowl or red — is brilliantly natural, inimitably healthy and morally superior. Wild game is the meat that made us human. Best of all, we must hunt in order to have it. The alleged “wild game” sold in some restaurants is in fact the comparatively flaccid flesh of captive wild animals and has the same culinary relationship to true wild meat as farmed salmon does to the genuine free-swimming creature.

And — this is my apologia — if we hunt with gratitude and reverence, we gradually acquire a personally meaningful love not only for the act of traditional hunting and the meat it procures, but for the animals we hunt as well.

Baloney, say hunting’s harshest critics. How can one who kills for “fun” feel compassion for his prey, the victims of the hunt?

10/11/2013 10:52:05 PM

A really excellent article that puts the morality of hunting into a clear perspective with that of the inhumane way 'we' choose to raise our food in the indefensible factory farming system.If the respect and consideration David gives his prey was mirrored by those who mass produce our food the world would be a far better place. I'm really pleased to have stumbled on this article. Having recently read and enjoyed his 'ON THE WILD EDGE - In Search of a Natural Life' (my second reading of it in 3 months, which says something on just how good a book I think it is) it looks like I should invest in his 'HEARTSBLOOD - Hunting, Spirituality, and Wildness in America' book which I guess this article is an extract from (or at least based upon). Not that I'm a hunter but I have a strong empathy with nature and animals and what and how he writes about these topics strikes a chord with me. More articles from David on MEN please!

8/9/2013 6:08:48 PM

The author makes a lot of good points about why we hunt and eat wild meat, but he is awfully judgmental of his fellow hunters. He's calling out the vast majority of hunters as "unethical" and "misguided". It's true, if I had the time and means to be successful at traditional bow hunting, I would. But those of us who don't write for a living have a very limited amount of time to devote to our chosen method of hunting and I don't think using a compound bow makes me less of a hunter.

As hunters we should be more concerned with encouraging and educating future generations and spend less time criticizing fellow law abiding sportsmen.

8/9/2013 12:38:56 PM

This is the best explanation or defense of hunting I have ever read.  I am going to print this out.

david pickens
4/28/2012 12:56:48 AM

NOT instinctual to hunt,it may not be going out in the woods and hunting meat for the table,but the person working 60 hrs a week to get the corner office, the lawyer busting his tail to make partner or person buying their fresh produce at the local market and getting a trill from the good price they negotiated its all fulfilling the hunters instinct.

lon henderson
4/12/2012 2:52:27 PM

One of the best articles of this type that I have read in a while........but, it has that tone of an elitist. For instance, "Clearly unethical activities that nonetheless are legal in some states include baiting, driving deer, and shooting bears or mountain lions from trees after they’ve been chased there by hounds." Really?.......clearly? I submit that if you hunt pheasants in a cornfield, you have hunted them on bait. If you hunt deer on a natural water hole, you have used a "bait" technique. It is likely that humans have used dogs or hounds to hunt with since the first wolf cub was raised by a "caveman". Were these early survival hunters being unethical? I say no. They used the available tools to enhance their hunting efficiency. The fact that I don't care to hunt with hounds doesn't mean that it is unethical. Rather I just don't like it. Hunters have always used the next break through in technology to improve their chance of eating meat that night. The recurve was a technical improvement over the stick. Mr. Petersen picks and chooses which technology conforms to his elitist tastes. A compound bad.......longbow good..............both were improvements over a spear or a rock. If Mr. Petersen were to be consistent, then hands and teeth must be his only choice to take down his prey. I concede that I find much of the new technology distasteful also, but not immoral. I use a 35 year old compound with my fingers that shoots a rainbow. Yet I don't look down my nose at a guy with a hyper fast compound and a release. And finally, we do not hunt to eat. We hunt because we like it for all the reasons that Mr. Petersen eloquently presented. If it is immoral or unethical to hunt and kill only what we eat, then hunting is immoral, because today, humans can eat their way to grotesque obesity without ever harming a single hair on a poor deer. Hunting is ethical because we humans are not outside the natural order. When I was a kid, a badger broke into the chicken house and killed fifty chickens and ate two. I submit the 48 extra poultry deaths were a thrill kill for the badger and doesn't make it immoral. And the same is true for a prairie dog or crow hunter that never eats his kill. Eating what you kill is great, but not the justification for hunting.

jason burke
3/12/2012 8:30:06 PM

Thank you, Luke, for this educated defense of having meat in our diets. While I respect the right of vegetarians to eat what they want, I do get tired of hearing about it (or why I should be one).

luke terry
3/12/2012 7:45:20 PM

There are many nutritional reasons why we need meat in our diets. I'll just cover a few: there are no vegetarians sources of bioavailable B12, nor carnitine, carnosine, nor DHA/EPA omega 3 fatty acids. As a former vegetarian and professional nutrionist, biochemist, and health practitioner, I cannot abide by vegetarianism as a healthful diet.

luke terry
3/12/2012 7:42:39 PM

Great article, David. I enjoyed this as much as I have several of your books. As a bowhunter, I feel strongly that we are performing and essential service in the wild. As you said, many species have a need to be hunted, and those species suffer when hunting is banned or limited. Suburban deer & elk are a good example. A note on equipment: I would love to hunt with a recurve or longbow. My compound bow allows me to be more accurate and more effective, with somewhat less time commitment to the craft. I would like to move in that direction, and am looking for my next bow, but I realize the utility of the bowhunt. I also hunt with a rifle at times, or a shotgun. Small game can be hunted with an air rifle at the same range as a bow. The technology used is not nearly as critical as the spirit and attitude by which the hunt enters the field of the hunt. In short, I participate in the Zen of Archery, and it's a continuum that starts with the modern compound, and continues through factory-made bows, with its apex at the self-made stickbow, arrows, and broadheads. Best wishes on the hunt for you.

3/12/2012 2:37:15 PM

I feel certain that the 7 billion inhabitants of this planet will be most gratified to learn that they should revert to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle

kevin simmons
2/7/2012 3:10:21 PM

To further Chris's rebutal to the lump of all hunters by equipment, I would like to say that many of us use the equipment we do because of a physical handicap and from your outburst in the article about this being cheating, I would like to ask you a question sir. When you go to town to buy your groceries or for the line you put on your fishing pole...or even the store bought arrows made in china on your bow, Do you walk? Because in the context of your thinking it would be cheating to drive and use the technology developed to get anywhere faster or less taxing on yourself simply because it's a newer more advanced version of your recurve...or Automobile. Since I have Degenerative disc desease in my neck and back, I can no longer turn my head to the peep sight I once used on my recurve, or compound I had move up to not because it gave me more advantage or let me cheat, but because it offered a better sighting system and a quicker more accurate harvest of the animal. Now I most use a crossbow and wish I had all along. It's kind of like driving, Do I take the Covered Wagon out for a spin or do you jump in your modern vehicle because it is faster. I suspect the latter. I read mother earth news for it's informative news on gardening and how to's and diy articles. when I read this article I wondered why, with all the Advertisements clogging your magazine that you would run an article complaining about the various ads of other products. This writer has some valid points about the Harvesting(not killing as he put it) of wild game, but some of your readers don't care about trophy hunting, we care about the conservation of our parks and wildlife today. Meat on the table to feed the family was what I was taught by my father who lived through the great depression, By the most humane means possible. Your recurve is an older version and unless properly used may leave an animal maimed or injured for hours or days. My crossbow is accurate and more humane. Plus, with my handycap I can still WALK in the woods and enjoy nature. Next time how about an article that tells me a how to havest wild game and not some ones obviously jaded opinion of why.

wanda booth
2/4/2012 8:05:42 AM

I would eat wild game any day!!! Its so good !

james midnightrambler
2/3/2012 4:25:29 AM

Though Mr. Peterson has a much more ethical sense of "fair chase" and not relying on baiting and excessive technology, giving wildlife a better chance, than most hunters,I suggest that his rationale still does not justify, killing an animal, using a method, ( bow hunting) that the expectation is the dying process is often many minutes and in a high percentage of hits, results in crippling/wounding the deer without a quick kill. A more compassionate question would be not wild vs domestic meat, by why meat at all? Its certainly not instinctual for humans to hunt, given the small percentage of hunters in our population, and it is declining yearly.

cameron hicks
2/1/2012 9:19:01 PM

I agree with Chris. The technology has increased for bows and I use a compound, mostly because I know that I can make the most humane shot each time with a compound as compared to a recurve or long bow. That is is the only part if the article that I do not agree on. All other parts are great, excellent article about getting back to how it should be!

chris horton
1/23/2012 1:18:12 AM

Excellent article! I agree with pretty much all of it, except i don't think you can judge all hunters by the equipment they use. I don't use a traditional long bow, mainly because I like the efficiency and comfort of a compound for insuring that clean, humane shot. I would like to get proficient with a recurve, but my work/travel schedule doesn't allow the time to switch. However, even with a compound bow, I still have to practice, I need good woodsman skills to give me the shot opportunity and I still have to have perfect shot placement. Using a "cheater technology" compound bow doesn't make me any less of a hunter. But, I agree - there are good hunters and there are bad. It just doesn't have anything to do with their equipment. It's more related to their ethical compass.

mother earth news fair


Oct. 21-22, 2017
Topeka, KS.

More than 150 workshops, great deals from more than 200 exhibitors, off-stage demos, inspirational keynotes, and great food!