Twenty Pounds of Venison From a 170-Pound Deer

Posted on March 3, 2014 by

Venison Burger, copyright Al Cambronne

In DEERLAND I wrote about the major role of deer in the environment and in American culture. The ecological angle of the story was fascinating, but so was the cultural angle. Whether we’re hunters or watchers, we think about deer in surprising ways.  As I recently told a group of wildlife biologists, “do not expect people to think rationally about deer.  They are a magical beast—like unicorns, but with better horns.” (Technically antlers, I know. But you get the idea.)

So the other day I was delighted to spot an internet anti-hunter asserting with an air of complete, total certainty that “only about 20 pounds of meat is used from a 170-pound deer.”  That’s less than 12% of the animal’s total weight. If this turns out to be true, it will be a huge surprise and a major disappointment for wildlife biologists and deer hunters everywhere.  Now, deer are beautiful animals and I would never reduce their entire value to venison.  Still, this 20/170 claim bears closer examination.

Fortunately, the writer’s estimate isn’t quite accurate; more about the actual ratios in a moment. But more interesting than the statement itself is why the writer might have made it and what this calculation reveals about his world view. Although the writer could be a vegan, his not mentioning his eating habits in this particular context suggests that he probably is not. So does this mean he’s making similar assumptions about the cows, pigs, and chickens that anonymous strangers are killing for him?

If so, then he still believes that his own meat-eating is more morally defensible than a hunter’s—even though he consumes a similarly small proportion of the animal or bird’s carcass.  True, it can already be argued that feedlots and CAFOs are a rather inefficient way to produce protein for human consumption.  But our internet commenter guy will be glad to know that more than 12% of each animal or bird from the meat factory does indeed end up on his or someone else’s plate.

Or perhaps he believes deer are somehow less meaty than cows or pigs.  But since they live out in the woods and lead a less sedentary lifestyle, wouldn’t we expect the opposite to be true?  Or, could he believe that hunters purposely leave most of the meat on the deer they butcher? Do they only pretend to be interested in venison?  And how does that work if the pay someone else to butcher their deer? Maybe the writer has just never thought this through very carefully—and maybe he’d rather not.  Otherwise he’d have to also think through a couple other things more carefully, and a mind is a terrible thing to change.

In DEERLAND I cited a 2011 survey of Americans’ attitudes toward hunting. The latest numbers are probably very similar, and they could help explain the 170-pound deer that only contained 20 pounds of venison.  It turns out that how people feel about hunting depends a lot on how you ask the question: Although only 6% of Americans went hunting that year, 74% approved of hunting and 94% felt it’s “OK for other people to hunt if they do so legally and in accordance with hunting laws and regulations.” Only 4% of respondents wanted to strip citizens of the right to hunt.  Respondents’ approval, however, appeared to be contingent on hunters’ motivations. While only 28% approved of “hunting for a trophy,” 81% approved of “hunting as wildlife management” and 85% approved of “hunting for meat.”  Given those numbers, especially the last one, maybe it’s easier to hate hunters and hunting if you convince yourself that a 170-pound deer contains only 20 pounds of venison.

Most deer hunters love venison; as much as they might enjoy the hunting experience itself, deer meat does matter to them.  They enjoy the process and the product. True, many of them dine on venison whose true cost could be calculated at hundreds of dollars per pound. They’re not all subsistence hunters living on the margins.  But comfortable urban nonhunters should understand that in much of rural and small-town America, those days aren’t gone forever.

Very few of my neighbors travel halfway across the country to hunt, and most of them Hanging Venison, copyright Al Cambronnethink twice before traveling halfway across the county. Instead they hunt their own land, a neighbor’s land, or the county forest across the road. They don’t own a safe filled with rifles in different calibers to suit the day’s terrain and mood. They have one, which they refer to as simply “my deer rifle.”  They may have purchased it a decade or two back, or they may have even inherited it from a father or grandfather. Either way, it’s a rifle that paid for itself many, many deer ago.

Hunting, whatever its recreational value, can be hard work. It takes patience and persistence. It takes time, and time is money. But for those with more time than money, the math works differently. If you’re a welder or construction worker who’s just been laid off for the winter, you’ll understand the words of that old Greg Brown song: “Time ain’t money when all you got is time.” For many Americans like those neighbors of mine, putting a deer or two in the freezer every fall is a big deal.

So how many dinners can hunters expect from the average deer?  Before writing
DEERLAND, I co-authored a how-to book called Gut It. Cut It. Cook It.: The Deer Hunter’s Guide to Processing and Preparing Venison.  In the very first chapter, we answered this question with something of a reality check.

First, most deer aren’t nearly as large as hunters would like to believe.  After field-dressing, the average deer weighs between 75 and 125 pounds. You probably won’t want to eat the head, feet, hide, or bones. You’ll also want to trim off the fat. Bottom line:  On average, slightly less than half of a deer’s field-dressed weight will be lean, boneless meat.  For a 120-pound deer, figure about 55 pounds.  That number could be higher if a deer is especially lean, and it could also be lower if a poorly placed bullet has damaged more meat than usual.

But to keep all this in perspective, remember that venison is leaner and doesn’t cook down as much as most meats from the grocery store.  That means a pound of venison can be stretched much farther than a pound of beef or pork.  And today most deer are butchered with a technique that removes all bones and fat. In contrast, if you bring home a two-pound T-bone steak and trim away everything that’s not beef, you won’t be left with very many ounces.

By the way…  You may have noticed that our “just under 50%” calculation was for a deer that’s been field-dressed, which is what hunters call the process of removing the insides from the deer before they remove the deer from woods. Calculations based on live, whole-carcass weights are more problematic; they introduce variables like when a deer last ate, how much it ate, and how well hydrated it was.  But it’s safe to say that a 170-pound deer will probably yield around 50 to 60 pounds of lean, boneless venison.  If those numbers are disappointing for hunters, they must be even more disappointing for certain anti-hunters.  Because a mind is a terrible thing to change.

© 2014 Al Cambronne

Backstrap with Onions, copyright Al Cambronne

Posted in Cuisine, Deer, Gut It. Cut It. Cook It., Hunting, Venison | 2 Comments

A Measurably Severe Winter

Posted on January 6, 2014 by

Frosty window at minus 31, copyright Al Cambronne

This old house doesn’t yet have modern, triple-pane windows.  Lately some mornings we’ve discovered frost on the inside.  I took this photo the other day at sunrise when it was -31° F.  It was about the same temperature this morning.

Here in northern Wisconsin, this is going to be a tough winter for deer—and also for other wildlife.  For a rough measure of just how tough, wildlife biologists use something called a Winter Severity Index (WSI).  States use different formulas, but Wisconsin uses a simple one:  Every day with more than 18” of snow on the ground gets a point.  So does every day when the temperature dips below 0° F.  A day when both happens?  That means two points.  Then at the end of the winter, add them all up.

Obviously, this formula doesn’t tell the whole story.  A crusty 17” of snow, for example, is more of a hardship for wildlife than a fluffy 19”.  And a calm night when the temperature briefly dips to 0° F isn’t as bad as a windy night when it falls to -25° F and stays there.  And I have to wonder if we should maybe add one more point when the daytime high doesn’t get above 0° F. (That would mean today gets three points.)

Still, the WSI is a good way to make rough comparisons from one winter to the next.  A winter with a final total of under 50 points is considered “mild,” 50 to 79 points is “moderate,” 80 to 99 is “severe,” and anything over 100 is “very severe.”

At 43 official stations here in northern Wisconsin, plus a few more downstate, these readings are recorded from December 1 through April 30.  At the unofficial station in my front yard, we’ve been racking up two points a day pretty much every day such December 1.  By my highly unofficial calculations, we’re already most of the way through “moderate.”  We should be hitting “severe” in another week or two, and it’s a long time until May 1.

In winter a deer’s primary metabolic strategy is to find thermal cover under thick conifers, stay bedded down, and expend as little energy as possible.  They live on stored fat, and they eat very little.  This year some individual deer may not live to see May Day.  But as a species, they’ve survived around four million cold winters.  Deer are survivors.

© 2014 Al Cambronne

 

Posted in Deer, Ecology | 4 Comments

A Special Thanksgiving Post

Posted on November 26, 2013 by

Venison Roast, Copyright Al Cambronne

It’s time for a special Thanksgiving post.  Since I’ve been writing a lot about deer lately, I suppose this could have been a timely history lesson about how turkey wasn’t even on the menu at that first Thanksgiving.  The main course was in fact venison.  Which is true, and the “story behind that story” gives us fresh insights into American history.  But more about that another time.

Instead, here’s a post about being thankful.  First, of course, for deer—even though botanists, ecologists, and foresters have taught me and my readers a great deal about how too many of them in one place can be a mixed blessing.  Deer are wondrous creatures, and their mere presence makes the woods feel wilder.  They have also provided us with a few dinners, and writing about them has even paid a couple bills.

For turkeys, especially of the wild variety—a few of which occasionally wander through our neighborhood.  For being far to the north and far upstream of the “farms” where those other turkeys come from.  (Sorry.  This was supposed to be an unrelentingly positive post.  I’ll get back on track in a moment here.  Please continue enjoying your leftover turkey sandwich.)

For all the reviewers, columnists, and bloggers who read DEERLAND, enjoyed it, and helped to spread the word.  For the TV and radio hosts who patiently coached me through my earliest interviews—and then later, through the magic of editing, made me sound incredibly fluent and articulate.  Thank you.

For everyone else who read DEERLAND, enjoyed it, and is telling their friends about it.  And even for readers who didn’t enjoy DEERLAND—usually because it included new facts about deer that didn’t fit with their existing beliefs.  I heard from a few of those people, too.  (Interestingly, roughly half were hunters and half were anti-hunting vegans.  People of all sorts have strong feelings about deer.) You can’t please everyone, and those occasional pieces of genuine hate mail helped confirm I hadn’t written a bland book.  For that, and for all the footnotes and rock-solid science I made sure to include, I am hugely thankful.

For tremendously supportive fellow writers and bloggers.  For a great agent who has given me wise counsel, supportive guidance, and tough literary love when I needed it.  For the talented, hard-working editors, publicists, and salespeople I’ve had the privilege of working with at two different publishers.  For all these people, I am deeply thankful.

I should also remember all the non-literary reasons I have to be thankful this Thanksgiving. A loving wife who’s the best thing that ever happened to me.  Our health.  A roof over our heads, and a great place to live.  Wonderful friends and neighbors.  And more.

Although I can often be a real glass-half-empty kind of guy, sitting down to write this blog post has reminded me that I have a lot for which to be thankful.  Every now and then it’s good to pause and count one’s blessings. Glad I did that.  I highly recommend it.

So…  Here’s to the deer, and Happy Thanksgiving!

© 2013 Al Cambronne

 

Posted in Books, Cuisine, Deer, Ecology, Forests, Gut It. Cut It. Cook It., Venison | Leave a comment

How accurate, lethal, and humane is modern bowhunting gear?

Posted on November 13, 2013 by

arrows in target, copyright Al Cambronne

As I researched DEERLAND, I learned a lot about America’s deer-hunting subculture.  I was especially fascinated by how profoundly hunters’ gear, tactics, and values have shifted over the space of just a single generation.  It turned out the exploding popularity of bowhunting was a big part of that story.

In my last post, I described an even more recent development: how the rising popularity of crossbows has led to much controversy and discord among hunters.  Some bowhunters see crossbows as an unfair advantage, while others point out that a modern compound bow is already an extremely effective hunting tool that has a surprisingly short learning curve.

Meanwhile, many anti-hunters unfamiliar with modern archery equipment believe that bowhunters’ shot placement is utterly random.  Images like this one further reinforce these perceptions, and those who oppose bowhunting are certain the few arrows that do hit their mark create small, painful wounds that are rarely fatal—and even then, only after hours or days of unbearable suffering.  These people believe that bowhunting, more than any other kind of hunting, is unavoidably cruel, unusual, and evil.  They’re certain bowhunting is the sport of Satan.

To support this view, they often cite anecdotal evidence or questionable studies from thirty or forty years ago.  I won’t try to answer these claims one by one; others already have taken time to do that.  Instead, let’s start fresh.  Let’s look specifically at modern archery equipment, and let’s examine observable facts.  Only then can we begin to answer a question that many hunters might prefer no one raised in the first place:  Just how accurate, lethal, and humane is modern bowhunting equipment?

The question deserves rational, objective consideration, and it’s something I learned more about while researching DEERLAND.  In my chapter on suburban deer issues, for example, I tagged along with a couple of urban bowhunters.  One of their stands was in a three-acre patch of woods nestled behind a row of houses on a quiet cul-de-sac.  The other was at the edge of a half-acre lawn just three blocks from downtown.  Clearly, these hunters were confident in the knowledge that if they chose their shots carefully, deer wouldn’t go far before toppling over.

Modern enthusiasts have demonstrated that in the right hands, even an atlatl can be aAldo Leopold's Bow, Copyright Al Cambronne surprisingly effective hunting tool.  And for those willing to put in enough practice time, traditional archery gear can arguably be a challenging but still ethical alternative.  (As an aside, I suspect many DEERLAND readers have been surprised to learn that Aldo Leopold was an avid bowhunter who played a major role in the sport’s 20th Century renaissance.  His favorite bow is now on display at the Pope & Young Club Museum of Bowhunting.)

Modern bowhunting gear, however, is entirely different.  Let’s take a closer look.  If you’re a bowhunter, the next couple paragraphs will seem very basic.  Stick with me.  We want to get everyone else up to speed, too.

First, all those pulleys, cams, and cables provide an important mechanical advantage.  When a bow is fully drawn, it typically requires 20% of its full draw weight to keep it there.  If a bow requires 70 pounds of force to draw, only 14 pounds will be required to hold it at full draw.  This allows hunters to use a bow with more draw weight, and it also allows them to hold at full draw for much longer.  That’s good, because modern bowhunters need time to aim carefully; they no longer shoot instinctively the moment they reach full draw.

Instead, they carefully align a peep sight on the string with another sight on the bow.  (Earlier, they’ll have laboriously and methodically sighted in their bow so it shoots where they’re aiming—just as one would a rifle.)  They’re not pulling the string with their fingers, but with a “release aid” strapped around their wrist.  The release aid’s jaws grip the string, and are opened by pressing a button or pulling a trigger.  The most popular type works and feels just like the trigger on a rifle.

The group of arrows in the photo at the beginning of this post was shot at 20 yards by a relative beginner (me) who had first picked up a bow only a couple weeks earlier.  I already had some basic rifle skills, and they seemed to be fairly transferrable.

Admittedly, not all of my groups look like that.  Most of them don’t. But for skilled archers, groups like these are the norm at 30 yards, not 20.  Here, in the context of testing the importance of seven different equipment variables, are some examples from a recent Field & Stream article.  (My impression, by the way, is that most bowhunters understand the importance of practice better than do some rifle hunters.)

Modern arrows fly more accurately, at a higher velocity, and in a flatter trajectory that Rage-Titanium-Broadheadsrequires less precision in range estimation.  They’re tipped with more advanced broadheads, and many models expand upon impact with a scissor-like motion.  Some have a cutting diameter of up to two inches, and yet the arrow often passes completely through the animal.  (Apparently bowhunters call this a “pass-through.”)

Whether from a bullet or an arrow, the damage that makes an animal’s death quicker and more humane is not a fun thing to see.  But if you’re still unconvinced about the lethality of modern bowhunting equipment, feel free to search the internet for helpful images and videos, sometimes posted by broadhead companies with names like Rage or Killzone.  I shall provide no links.  Even though I’m a hunter, and even though I co-authored the #1 selling book on how to butcher one’s own deer, I find this sort of footage rather distasteful.  So it’s a bit awkward asking antihunting vegans who abhor bowhunting to hurry up and search for, say, “rage broadhead uncensored video blood.”  But there you go.

As an adult-onset hunter who thinks a little too much about these questions, I do feel less confident about hunting with a bow.  Even with modern bowhunting equipment, things can go wrong.  Just as with rifles, some hunters practice less than they should and take shots they shouldn’t.  And it could certainly be argued that all else equal, a high-powered rifle is a more reliably humane hunting tool.  Today it could also be argued, however, that a modern compound bow is itself a very humane hunting tool.

You’ll still hear anecdotes about deer being wounded by bowhunters and not recovered.  Lately, however, I’ve also been hearing more anecdotes about deer that barely flinched after an arrow pass completely through them.  They continued browsing for a few seconds, and then toppled over dead.  Arrows kill differently than bullets, and comparisons aren’t simple.

I’m not an archery expert, and so far I’ve mostly just been shooting at targets.  But on the basis of what I’ve learned so far, I’d say modern bowhunting equipment is potentially very accurate, lethal, and humane.

So how would you answer the question???

© 2013 Al Cambronne

Evolution of the Compound Bow, copyright Al Cambronne

 

 

Posted in Deer, Gut It. Cut It. Cook It., Hunting, Venison | Leave a comment

Crossbows and Arrow Guns in Deerland

Posted on November 3, 2013 by

modern crossbow

In DEERLAND I describe some of the many ways in which American deer hunting culture has changed dramatically over just the past generation.  The exploding popularity of bowhunting is a big part of that story.  A generation ago, bowhunters were rare and their equipment was primitive.  Today, bowhunters are far more numerous.  They account for a large portion of the revenues at outdoor retailers, and they also account for a large portion of the harvest.

Meanwhile, their equipment has changed dramatically.  Today’s compound bows are marvels of high-tech engineering.  Bowhunters aim through fiber-optic sights and launch carbon-fiber arrows from thousand-dollar bows with better accuracy than many hunters could manage shooting offhand with a rifle.

Most states have archery deer seasons that are much longer than the firearms season, and often they precede the firearm season.  When these seasons were first established, they were meant for a primitive weapon that would be far more challenging.  But modern archery equipment, although limited to shorter ranges, has become quite effective.  This means that many of today’s bowhunters are more interested in an extra-long season than they are in an extra challenge.

Now many states are making crossbows legal during the archery season—essentially giving them the same legal status as any other archery implement.  This arms race has led to a brand-new culture clash.  It’s probably fair to say that bowhunters aren’t excited about sharing their early-season woods with hordes of newly converted crossbow hunters.  They feel the crossbow is an entirely different sort of weapon.  It requires less skill, and presents an extremely short learning curve for those already familiar with firearms.  Many believe its extra range and accuracy are also an unfair advantage.

In practice, however, the differences are small.  One recent comparison at Field & Stream found very little performance difference between crossbows and modern compound bows.  Crossbows do, however, eliminate the need to draw a bow when a deer comes into range.  It’s often this motion that gives hunters away.  But when hunters are in a treestand or ground blind, deer may not be alerted anyway.  It could also be argued that a modern compound bow already presents a very short learning curve for new bowhunters who possess basic rifle skills.

Still, that hasn’t prevented hunters from arguing incessantly over this question.  In almost every issue, regional outdoor magazines publish angry letters for and against crossbows.  Often writers invoke history and etymology, noting that the device is, after all, called a crossbow.  It’s not called an “arrowgun.”  Personally, I find this argument unconvincing.  After all…  Crossbows came after bows and before guns.  If firearms had been in common use before crossbows were invented, then crossbows probably would have been called “arrowguns.”

Which brings to mind an interesting question…  In the last issue of Wisconsin Outdoor News, one writer did offer a rare new idea in the crossbow debate: “Would your opinion change if the crossbow took on a drastically different appearance?  Could something change that would no longer make it a ‘bow’?”

“If crossbows dropped the limb-and-string design,” he wrote, “in favor of a slimmer profile containing a hidden compression spring mechanism or a charged nitrogen tank (still launching an arrow/bolt with a trigger pull—maybe at 500 to 600 fps, and without “firepower”), is it still a “bow?”  If you changed your opinion to no, then I ask how you can claim a crossbow, with limbs and a string, is any different when it accomplishes the same task with the same steps?”

An interesting argument.  And it turns out that such a weapon already exists—except for the 500 to 600 fps part.  It’s called an “arrow gun.”  You can learn more here and here.  Since it’s powered by compressed air rather than by bent composite limbs, most states’ game laws wouldn’t define it as a crossbow.  But presumably this crossbow with a CO2-powered automatic cocking mechanism would be legal anywhere; the gas only cocks the crossbow.  Clearly, however, these distinctions are becoming increasingly small.

Does this mean I hate crossbows?  No.  Personally, I view this as a fascinating story about culture clashes within an American subculture.  New technology versus old traditions.  That’s all.  As more and more states have made crossbows legal throughout a longer archery season, their deer populations have not been decimated.

So maybe a longer crossbow season in my state and a few others won’t be the end of the world.  After all…  Here in Wisconsin our gun deer season lasts for nine days, and it’s always the same nine days.  It’s a sacred tradition.  But Georgia’s lasts for four weeks and Tennessee’s for six.  Those are the firearms seasons, not the archery seasons.  But neither state has run out of deer.  Season length is just one of the many tools wildlife managers use to regulate harvest numbers.

In DEERLAND I describe how we now have a brand new problem in much of America—not too few deer, but too many.  That’s often led to serious ecological consequences.  Deer birth control has not turned out to be an easy answer, and many of the areas with too many deer are places that don’t allow the discharge of firearms.  Does this mean that crossbows—or even, for that matter, arrow guns—are part of the solution?

© 2013 Al Cambronne

 

 

Posted in Deer, Ecology, Hunting | 3 Comments

Don’t Veer for Deer

Posted on October 1, 2013 by

On Patrol, Copyright Al Cambronne

We interrupt our regularly scheduled blogging for this important public service announcement.  Please read it and heed it.  This message could save your life.  Seriously.

It’s a simple message: Don’t veer for deer.

The overwhelming majority of deer-vehicle crashes result only in damage to the vehicle, with no human injuries or fatalities.  The exceptions almost invariably occur when drivers swerve to miss a deer.  When they do, they often swerve into oncoming traffic, into a roadside oak tree, or over a steep embankment.  Don’t do that.

You’ll hear these same words of advice from me, the insurance industry, and state wildlife agencies everywhere.  If you don’t believe us, believe the state troopers and body shop technicians.  These people have seen it all.  As part of my research for DEERLAND, I rode along with a state trooper and interviewed a couple body shop guys.  I learned different things from all of them, but they all told me the same thing: Don’t veer for deer.

The guy in the picture below is Awesome George, owner of Awesome Auto Body in Minong Wisconsin.  George knows deer crashes.  (And yes, that explains that crumpled hood in the picture.) There’s not much stop-and-go traffic in George’s neighborhood, and it’s over an hour’s drive to the nearest mall parking lot.  This explains why he owes over 60% of his business to deer-vehicle crashes.  Most of his other business results when people drink and drive.  His job security, in other words, is 100% guaranteed by deer and beer.

His words of wisdom: “Don’t swerve.  Hit the damn deer. You’re worth more than a deer or a car.  And your car can be fixed.  Your neck can’t.  Your car?  That’s what insurance is for.  Sure, as long no one’s tailgating you, go ahead and hit the brakes.  If you have time to stop, stop.  But don’t swerve and risk your neck over a deer—or even a dog or a squirrel.  Believe me, I’ve seen it happen.”

His advice is especially timely; there’s a reason I’m posting this special PSA on October 1.  Pretty much everywhere in North America, October and November are the two most likely months for deer-vehicle collisions.  Hunters and biologists call this season “the rut.”  Newspapers and family-oriented publications generally refer to it more gingerly as “deer mating season.”  Either way, deer are distracted.  Let’s just say their little deer minds are on other things, and they don’t always remember to look both ways before crossing the street.

This is also the time of year when State Farm issues its annual report on deer collision statistics.  Here are two stories about the latest numbers, one from Bloomberg and the other from an insurance industry website called Claims Journal.  Bottom line: In many states, crashes are down slightly because deer populations are down—primarily due to the spread of Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD).  On the other hand, the average cost of each claim is up slightly this year.

I’ll let you read the articles and study the details for yourself.  For now, just remember this: Stay alert, stay sober, and watch for deer—especially at dawn and dusk.  That way you won’t become a statistic.

And most of all…  Don’t veer for deer.

© 2013 Al Cambronne

Awesome Auto Body, Copyright Al Cambronne

 

Posted in Crash, Deer | 1 Comment

The Splendid Sagen Saw

Posted on September 9, 2013 by

Sagen SAw, Copyright Al Cambronne

This post is something you’ll rarely see here: an unsolicited, unpaid testimonial for a particular product that is not a book.  Although deer-related, the product is not a particularly glamorous one.  It’s a small, inexpensive tool that deer hunters use during certain steps of the field-dressing process.  So if you’re not a hunter, you may want to stop right here and come back in a week or two for my next blog post.

Yes, hunting is unavoidably part of the story I tell in DEERLAND.  And on a landscape level, hunting remains our only effective means of keeping deer populations in check.  Even for readers who have no interest in taking up hunting themselves, DEERLAND offers a revealing look inside America’s deer-industrial complex—and also inside some fascinating subcultures.  Plus, hunting is obviously just one part of the larger environmental and cultural story I tell in DEERLAND.  Still, if you’re a non-hunter reading this blog post, then today you may want to skip what are quite literally “the gory details.”

But if you are a hunter, you should know about the Sagen Saw.  It’s made, not surprisingly, by Sagen, Inc.  Sagen is located in Beulah, ND, and I’m guessing it’s not a large company.  (All or most of its employees appear to have the same last name: Sagen.)  But the Sagen Saw is a great product.  It’s been on the market for several years, and Sagen recently came out with a larger version designed for elk and moose. It only weighs a couple ounces, and it generally sells for around $20.

As you may have guessed from the picture, the Sagen Saw is a tool for cutting bone—specifically a deer’s pelvic bone and sternum.  Some hunters don’t cut either when field-dressing a deer, but most do choose to cut the pelvis, the sternum, or both.  (For me, at least, doing so can make certain other steps much easier.)  One of these gadgets—and I’m not usually one for gadgets—is by far the easiest and safest way to get the job done.

Cutting a deer’s pelvis or sternum with a knife is not easy, especially if it’s a larger, older deer that has heavier bones.  I’ve heard of hunters breaking the tips of their knives, and sometimes bruising their palm or the heel of their hand by pounding on the end of the knife handle.  Some hunters use a rock or a stick to pound on their knife, which is a good way to damage its handle, break off its tip, and shower a partially opened deer carcass with dirt, gravel, wood chips, or insects.

I’ve even heard of hunters using a hatchet, which at best would lead to lots of bone splinters and sharp edges that will later be a hazard for you or your butcher.  Plus, it just seems unnecessarily barbaric.  The same is true, in my opinion, for a whole array of innovative, heavy-duty, and just plain heavy gadgets that are designed to pry, scissor, or hack through these bones.

The Sagen Saw also solves another problem: just beneath both the pelvis and sternum are internal organs that you do not want to cut.  If you were using a knife, that could be especially difficult to avoid when cutting the pelvic bone.  But with the Sagen Saw, it’s no problem.  That little plastic bumper on the end of the saw bumps against the bladder and intestines without puncturing them.  This helps you avoid adding new, unexpected flavors to your venison.

One final advantage is safety.  When using a knife to make these cuts, some hunters straddle the deer, bend over, and pull the knife toward themselves.  While this is a very bad idea, it would be awkward and difficult to make these cuts while pushing the knife away from yourself.  Just give it an imaginary try right now, and you’ll see what I mean.

So when your knife slips, or when it cuts the rest of the way through unexpectedly, you’d better be able to stop its progress fast.  Good luck.  More than one hunter has severed a femoral artery in this fashion (their own, not the deer’s), bled to death in seconds, and then later been found laying dead next to a partially eviscerated deer.  Don’t do that.

So for an easier, safer method…  Try the Sagen Saw.  You can find one at most outdoor stores.  Or, you can order one right here.

© 2013 Al Cambronne

 

Posted in Deer, Gut It. Cut It. Cook It., Venison | Leave a comment