Originally Posted by
Topgun 3006
Texas would have more big game just like flags stated and your link is of no significance in this discussion because it's dealing with domestic cattle production, not wild animals, although come to think of it I have seen some pretty wild cattle down there on several ranches I hunted!
I thought the premise was some sort of collapse. In which case meat would be meat. We had some pretty wild cattle running around Fort Hood, and I've heard stories from the old days about the range cattle. So, I guess it would be something close to hunting bison, or cape buffalo on a lessor scale.
Originally Posted by
Muley Hunter
The last place I'd go is Texas. I'll stay right where I am, but move up higher in the mountains. Hunting will too hard for the average person in the mountains. Keep in mind you won't have just hunters hunting, but everybody will be hunting.
The easier the hunting. The more people doing it. Just like it is right now.
The game populations could not support our population for very long. Then it wouldn't take very long for people to figure out where to look for meat. If you've already butchered it for them all the better.
Originally Posted by
sachiko
Wrong, there are no deer in Michigan. Those few that were not killed by the mosquitoes several years ago died of chronic wasting disease.
Although one Michigan mosquito will provide lunch and supper for a family of four.
Humor? Oh, I get it.
Originally Posted by
Oldtimr
Not to worry Muley, the city and non hunting folks aren't going to decend to the wilderness to survive, they would all flock to the same place and huddle together waiting for the government to help them while they starved and killed each other over scraps.
Think again.
Originally Posted by
Muley Hunter
The traditional deer population is smaller than the northern ones. Which is the way it goes for all populations. But many of the deer on larger properties are transplanted and bred for trophy appeal. This is why you see some larger deer coming out of various "hunting" operations. But if things are not going well and various luxuries like freezers have ceased to operate. A smaller deer would be preferred in the warmer weather as would small game, and fish in general. So point Texas.
Originally Posted by
flags
What TX lacks in size they make up for in numbers and the licenses reflect that. On the standard license you can take at least 5 deer. Some counties allow more. And, if you want you can fill all the deer tags with does so if meat is your thing (which it is if you're concerned about body size), then TX is pretty generous. Face it if you understand basic math it isn't too hard to figure out that 5 100 pound deer will give you a lot more meat than a single 200 lb deer. Many of the ranches are really proud of their big bucks, but that can be said in all states look at what a landowner voucher in CO can cost, but many ranches in TX will let you take does for free since they try to manage the herds and care more about antlers than meat.
Not trying to turn this into a TX vs everybody else thread. As a matter of fact despite the fact that I'm now working in TX I maintain my CO residency purely for resident hunting licenses. But I'm only doing so until I draw my bull tag for unit 2. I'm sitting on 21 points and that should get it next year. After that I'll switch my residency to TX so I can hunt year round for a $50 license. Not many places you can do that.
Each state has its pluses and minuses. In keeping with the OP's original question, those of you that say you will head to the high country aren't thinking about surviving the winter if everything goes belly up. Even the Indians headed to low winter range. If you think you can survive way up high, you're probably misguided. Hence my comment about heading to a southern river bottom. Much easier to survive since the winters are mild and water is handy. But, to each his own since it is a rhetorical question at best.
Precolumbian Native Americans had an average lifespan of 25 years. All skeletal remains examined showed signs of malnutrition.
Originally Posted by
kidoggy
which brings us to cannibalism. human would most likely be one of the easiest species to hunt and they are everywhere.
I imagine this will offend the delicate sensibilities of some but when they restraints of society break down this will quickly become a viable option.
even if you balk at eating human there will be those willing to eat you.
I equate cannibalism with shopping at Walmart. I only do it when it's absolutely necessary.
If you look at Texas alone it does appear to be a good choice. But as you back up and see the neighborhood. There would be an influx from all directions before too long.
bellum omnium contra omnes. So, as Muley said higher elevations and harsher climates would buy you sometime. Alaska might not be the best choice but perhaps Canada's western territories would be the place to head. I'm sure Canada would attempt to keep the law and order mechanism in place as long as possible. Certainly, the bugs alone would keep people away during the warmer months. But the First Nations population would have to be avoided.
In the end the people who stuck together would have the best chance of survival. Simply rebuilding what has already proven itself as an effective system. Doesn't really sound all that bad does it?
