ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY WILDLIFE MEAT: A CROSS CULTURAL 
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SWEDEN 

By 

Amber Danielle Goguen 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to 
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements   
for the degree of 

Fisheries and Wildlife – Doctor of Philosophy 

2024

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Wildlife meat, the meat procured from free-ranging animals, is harvested and consumed 

throughout the world for economic, cultural, ecological, and nutritional reasons. Although 

culture is recognized as a major factor influencing the harvest and consumption of wildlife meat, 

research on the relationship between culture and consumption of wildlife is lacking. 

Additionally, institutions govern how wildlife meat is obtained, used, and distributed 

determining who benefits from wildlife meat and in what manner. Thus, institutions can mediate 

the relationship between culture and wildlife consumption. Markets in wildlife meat and the 

policies that govern them are a contentious institution in wildlife conservation and public health.  

I use the ecosystem services framework to identify how wildlife meat contributes to 

culture. Chapter 2 explores previous research to construct a comprehensive assessment of 

ecosystem services and disservices provided by wildlife meat, establishing the theoretical 

underpinnings for this dissertation. Wildlife meat provides a unique example of a synergistic 

relationship between two ecosystem services: wildlife meat is a provisional ecosystem service (in 

the form of food; ornamental resources; or biochemicals, natural medicines, and 

pharmaceuticals) that simultaneously provides cultural ecosystem services (in the form of social 

relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, spiritual and religious, knowledge systems, sense of 

place, and recreation and tourism). Chapters 3 and 4 uses interviews with hunters in Michigan 

and Sweden to explore how wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services under differing 

governance systems. Sixty interviews with Michigan deer hunters and 32 interviews with 

Swedish large ungulate hunters were analyzed using provisional, attribute, in vivo, and 

descriptive coding. Wildlife meat provided hunters cultural ecosystem services in the form of 

social relations, identity, cultural heritage, education, knowledge systems, spiritual and religious, 

 
 
 
 
and recreation and tourism. This finding emphasizes the cultural importance of wildlife meat, 

and more broadly wildlife, to society.  

Chapter 5 uses the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to compare 

the complex systems of wildlife meat use and distribution in Michigan, USA and Sweden in 

order to explore the influence of governance on the creation and distribution of benefits from 

wildlife meat. In Michigan and Sweden formal and informal institutions determine who has 

access to wildlife meat. Informal institutions, however, had greater influence on how wildlife 

meat was actually distributed. The provisional and cultural ecosystem services hunters derive 

from wildlife meat appear ubiquitous regardless of the presence or absence of markets for 

wildlife meat. In Sweden, the presence of formal markets in wildlife meat appears to increases 

access to wildlife meat for non-hunters and provides additional cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of recreation and tourism.  

Findings from this dissertation provide insights for wildlife conservation and public 

health. My study is novel in its application of the cultural ecosystem services framework to 

wildlife meat and the demonstration that the cultural ecosystem services framework is an 

effective tool for recognizing and articulating the many and complex cultural components of 

wildlife meat. Additionally, this is the first study to identify cultural ecosystem services provided 

by wildlife meat to license purchasing hunters in the United States and Sweden. Using the 

cultural ecosystem services framework allows for systematic interpretation of the relationship 

between culture and consumption advancing understanding of the benefits wildlife meat, and 

more broadly wildlife, provide society. Identifying the influences of governance (i.e., the 

presence or absence of markets) on the creation and distribution of benefits from wildlife meat 

contributes to current debates and is needed to inform science-based policy. 

 
 
This dissertation is dedicated to the loving memory of Jon Goguen,  
my father and the person who introduced me to the world of science. 

iv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I acknowledge the financial contributions of the following organizations in support of my 

graduate education and research: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Grant, National 

Science Foundation and the Swedish Research Council Graduate Research Opportunities 

Worldwide (GROW) grant, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, a 

Michigan State University University Enrichment Fellowship, a Segal AmeriCorps Education 

Award, and a Safari Club International Michigan Involvement Committee Joseph G. 

Schotthoefer Memorial Student Award. Additional support was provided by the Michigan State 

University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife through the following awards: Joseph Laurence 

Maison Fellowship for Wildlife Conservation, William W. Taylor and Evelyn M. Taylor 

Endowed Fellowship for International Engagement in Coupled Human and Natural Systems, and 

the Vera M. Wallach Fellowship.  

A few paragraphs can neither begin to express my gratitude to all those who have helped 

me through this arduous yet highly rewarding process, nor the number of beings who have 

contributed in some way to its realization. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor 

Dr. Shawn Riley for his dedication, support, and expertise in support of this research and my 

graduate career. I would also like to thank the other members of my Graduate Committee, Dr. 

Jack Liu, Dr. John Organ, Dr. Emily Pomeranz for sharing their expertise and advice throughout 

this project. 

I am grateful for the hard work and input of project collaborators, in particular the efforts 

of Brain Frawley from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Göran Ericsson from the 

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Camila Sandström from Umeå University, the late 

Jimmy Petersson from Svenska Jägareförbundet. Without the expertise and hard work of 

v 

 
 
 
 
Katarina Hansson-Forman none of the data collected in Sweden would be possible. I am forever 

grateful for her expertise, perseverance, and kindness.  

Special thanks to the members of the Riley lab for their encouragement and feedback, 

and of course some good laughs. I thank my fellow graduate students, professors, and staff in the 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife for their numerous contributions to my graduate career. 

I am also grateful to my friends and family around the globe, who have inspired, encouraged and 

sustained me, and perhaps most importantly, made me smile. I am especially thankful to my 

parents for engraining in me a love for all things wild, their unconditional support, and 

unwavering belief in my abilities. I can never repay my mom for the hundreds of hours she spent 

babysitting my daughter so that I could finish writing this document. Words can truly not express 

the sense of gratitude I have for the love and support I received from my husband, Douglas 

Kirkpatrick.  I must also thank my furriest of companions, my cat, Rufus, and dog, Badger for 

their constant companionship and much needed comedic relief. And last, but not least, I must 

thank my daughter, Sylvan Lark, who gave me the final motivation I needed to complete my 

degree.  

This research would not have been possible without the willing participation of hunters 

from Michigan and Sweden. Thank you to everyone who shared their valuable time and 

wonderful stories. I would also like to thank all the hunting teams in Sweden who allowed me to 

participate in their hunting season and shared their knowledge and wildlife meat with me. Last, 

but certainly not least, I thank the wildlife: without them none of this research would be possible.  

vi 

 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………...  viii 

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….......... 

ix 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION……………………………… 
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….. 

1 
6 

CHAPTER 2: WILDLIFE MEAT PROVIDES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES …………….. 
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….. 

10 
41 

CHAPTER 3: CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY VENISON IN 
MICHIGAN, USA …………………………………………………………………...….... 
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….. 
APPENDIX 3.1: MICHIGAN POSTCARD …………………………...……..….. 
APPENDIX 3.2: MICHIGAN INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT………...………...… 
APPENDIX 3.3: MICHIGAN BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE ……....…... 

52 
84 
93 
94 
97 

CHAPTER 4: CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY WILDLIFE 
MEAT IN SWEDEN …………………………………………………………………...… 

99 
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..  139 
APPENDIX 4.1: SWEDISH POSTCARD……………………………………..….  146 
APPENDIX 4.2: SWEDISH LETTER………………………………………....….  147 
APPENDIX 4.3: SWEDISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN SWEDISH………...  148 
APPENDIX 4.4: SWEDISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH ……..…  153 
APPENDIX 4.5: SWEDISH BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN 
SWEDISH……………………………………………………………………….…  158 
APPENDIX 4.6: SWEDISH BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN 
ENGLISH………………………………………………………………………..…  160 

CHAPTER 5: A CROSS-CASE COMPARISON OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 
PROVIDED BY WILDLIFE MEAT UNDER DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE 
SYSTEMS……..…………………………………………………………………………...  162 
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..  217 

vii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1: Ecosystem services and disservices provided by wildlife meat ……..………... 

36 

Table 3.1: The cultural ecosystem service categories used in this study, their definitions, 
and how they were interpreted in the context of wildlife meat…….…………………...… 

83 

Table 4.1: Total number of harvested animals and estimated carcass meat from the five 
large ungulate species hunted in Sweden during the 2010/2011 hunting season.…………  137 

Table 4.2: The cultural ecosystem service categories used in this study, their definitions, 
and how they were interpreted in the context of wildlife meat.………………………...…  138 

Table 5.1: Total amount of edible wildlife meat in kilograms produced by large 
ungulates in Michigan USA, and Sweden from 2011- 2021.…………………………...…  212 

Table 5.2: Total amount of edible wildlife meat in kilograms produced by large 
ungulates in Sweden from 2011- 2021.……………………………………………………  213 

Table 5.3: Summary comparison of Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) 
domain categories between Michigan and Sweden.……………………………….………  214 

viii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.1: The ecosystem services framework……………………………………...…… 

34 

Figure 2.2: Identification of and relationships between provisional ecosystem services, 
cultural ecosystem services, and disservices from wildlife meat…………………….…… 

Figure 3.1: Map of counties in Michigan (either Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, or Shiawassee) 
where interviews took place…………………………………………..……………….….. 

35 

82 

Figure 3.2: Michigan Postcard …………………………………………………………… 

93 

Figure 4.1: Swedish municipalities used for selection of interview participants………….  136 

Figure 4.2: Swedish Postcard.……………………………………..………………………  146 

Figure 4.3: Swedish Letter.………………………………………….………………….…  147 

Figure 5.1: The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework.………..……  206 

Figure 5.2: Geographic location of Michigan, USA and Sweden.……………………..….  207 

Figure 5.3: Governance structure for wildlife meat use and distribution in Michigan, 
USA from the international to the individual level………………………………..………  208 

Figure 5.4: Governance structure for wildlife meat use and distribution in Sweden from 
the international to the individual level……………………………………………………  209 

Figure 5.5: Wildlife meat distribution channels in Michigan, USA.………………………  210 

Figure 5.6: Wildlife meat distribution channels in Sweden………………………….……  211 

ix 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION 

People throughout the world harvest wildlife for food (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012) and 

have been doing so for an estimated five million years (Larsen, 2003). Wildlife meat recently has 

been gaining interest in popular literature (Cerulli, 2012) and academic research (Corradini et al., 

2022). Markets used for the distribution of wildlife meat are a topic of continuous, contentious 

debate (Geist, 1988; Thogmartin, 2006). Markets in wildlife meat pose potential risks for wildlife 

populations (VanVliet & Mbazza, 2011; Wilkie & Carpenter, 1999) and public health (Paulsen et 

al., 2014; Volpato et al., 2020). Furthermore, policies around wildlife meat are still hindered by a 

lack of knowledge, particularly relating to sociocultural effects (Chausson et al, 2019; Nasi et al., 

2011; Morsello et al., 2015). Exploring the benefits provided by wildlife meat enables an 

understanding of what drives consumption and the role of wildlife meat, and more broadly, 

wildlife, in society. Identifying the influence of governance (in particular, the presence or 

absence of markets) on the creation and distribution of benefits from wildlife meat can contribute 

to current policy debates. 

Wildlife meat is derived from free-ranging mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians that 

are not cultivated, domesticated, or tamed (Food Law, 2000; Nasi et al., 2008). The term meat 

refers to the parts of an animal that are used for human consumption, which vary from culture to 

culture, but are broadly identified as the muscle, viscera, skeleton, and associated body tissues 

(Stanford & Bunn, 2001). Other common terms for wildlife meat are game meat, bushmeat, 

wild-harvested meat, or wild meat.  

Wildlife meat is generally considered a healthy source of lean protein, high in energy and 

essential macronutrients (Bureš et al., 2015; Cordain et al., 2002; Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006; 

Marchello et al., 1985). However, potential adverse health risks can arise from the handling and 

1 

 
 
 
 
consumption of wildlife meat (Paulsen et al., 2014), such as illness caused from bacteria, 

protozoa, and parasites (Gill, 2007; Nelson et al., 2003; Ramanzin et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2001); 

zoonotic diseases (Alexander et al., 2015; Bell et al., 2004; Volpato et al., 2020); and ingestion 

of bio-accumulated chemical contaminants and heavy metals (Danieli et al., 2012; Iqbal et al., 

2009, Warenik-Bany et al., 2016).  

Food practices are key elements of many cultures and serve economic, political, 

recreational, social, aesthetic, religious, ceremonial, magical, legal and medical functions (Bryant 

et al., 2003). Wildlife meat can also serve these functions, thus playing an important cultural 

role. Although culture is recognized as a factor influencing wildlife meat consumption 

(Chausson et al, 2019; Mainka & Trivedi, 2002; Nasi et al., 2011; Bennet & Robinson, 2000; 

Schenck et al., 2006; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011), research on the relationship between culture 

and wildlife consumption is lacking (Chausson et al, 2019; Nasi et al., 2011; Morsello et al., 

2015). However, there is growing interest in understanding the cultural importance of wildlife 

meat (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). 

Markets in wildlife meat are a contentious issue in wildlife conservation and public 

health. In some areas of the world, unregulated markets in wildlife meat have been identified as 

causing declines in wildlife populations (VanVliet & Mbazza, 2011; Wilkie & Carpenter, 1999). 

Consumption of wildlife meat also poses public health risks. For example, wildlife meat 

consumption in China is thought to have been the vehicle for transmission of SARS-CoV2 to 

humans, which has had devastating effects worldwide (Paulsen et al., 2014; Volpato et al., 2020). 

Debates about allowing economic benefits from the sale of wildlife meat exist even in highly 

regulated wildlife management systems. In the United States, fundamental changes to wildlife 

management are being proposed that would legalize the sale of wildlife meat. For instance, 

2 

 
 
 
 
lawmakers in New Jersey put forth a bill to allow the commercial harvest and sale of venison 

from wild deer (New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 3039, 2014). A better understanding of the 

function and influence of wildlife meat is needed to inform science-based policy changes 

pertaining to markets in wildlife meat as risks to food safety and security emerge and social 

transformations alter the way humans interact with nature. 

The conceptual framework underpinning my dissertation is the Ecosystem Services 

Framework. Ecosystem services are ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that 

benefit humans (Costanza et al., 2017), or simply, the benefits that people derive from nature 

(MEA, 2005).  Ecosystem services is a holistic and transferable framework useful for identifying 

the diverse linkages between people and nature (Gee & Burkhard, 2010; Kaltenborn et al., 2017; 

MEA, 2005). The ecosystem services framework is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. My previous 

research (Goguen et al., 2018; Goguen & Riley, 2020) identified provisional ecosystem services 

provided by venison in Michigan. However, through this research, I recognized that many of the 

benefits provided by venison did not fall under the category of provisional services. Adding to 

this realization is the recent interest in understanding how the cultural importance of wildlife 

meat drives consumption (Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011; Watkin Lui et al., 2016).  

I propose that wildlife meat provides a unique example of a synergist relationship 

between two ecosystem services: wildlife meat is a provisional ecosystem service, that also 

provides cultural ecosystem services. This synergistic relationship has received little attention in 

literature and has not been systematically studied. I use the cultural ecosystem services concept 

to identify and describe the cultural significance of wildlife meat. My dissertation aims to 

advance knowledge about wildlife meat to better inform wildlife conservation and policy, and 

food safety and security through new knowledge and insights about the roles wildlife meat plays 

3 

 
 
 
 
in society, while also enhancing the theoretical underpinnings of cultural ecosystem services 

with empirical evidence.  

The research objectives guiding my dissertation were to: 1) establish and test the 

theoretical underpinning that wildlife meat provides provisional and cultural ecosystem services; 

2) evaluate the cultural ecosystem services created by wildlife meat under different systems of 

governance; 3) determine whether or how governance structures influence benefits derived from 

wildlife meat. 

I chose to accomplish these objectives via a cross-case comparison between the United 

States and Sweden of how wildlife meat connects people and nature through the ecosystem 

services it provides. This cross-case comparison enables examination of how governance 

structure influences the benefits provided to society by wildlife meat. Comparing these two 

systems enables careful consideration of how the presence or absence of markets in wildlife meat 

influence the benefits provided to society by wildlife meat. In general, the sale of wildlife meat 

in the United States is illegal, whereas in Sweden, wildlife meat can be sold by hunters in a 

variety of ways to other individuals and food businesses for public consumption. Furthermore, 

most research pertaining to wildlife meat consumption focuses on subsistence communities; little 

research has been conducted on the benefits provided to society by wildlife meat harvested by 

license purchasing hunters in Europe, the United States, and Canada. 

My dissertation is structured with this introductory chapter, three analytical chapters, and 

a final synthesis chapter. Chapter 2, titled “Wildlife Meat Provides Ecosystem Services,” is an 

extensive literature review that reveals gaps in knowledge and proposes theory to be tested. 

Chapter 3, titled “Cultural ecosystem services provided by venison in Michigan, USA” analyzes 

60 in-depth interviews conducted with Michigan deer hunters to identify the cultural ecosystem 

4 

 
 
 
 
services provided by venison in Michigan, USA. Chapter 4, titled “Cultural ecosystem services 

provided by wildlife meat in Sweden” analyzes 32 interviews conducted with Swedish hunters to 

identify the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat in Northern and Southern 

Sweden. Chapter 5, titled “A cross-case comparison of ecosystem services provided by wildlife 

meat under different governance systems” compares and synthesizes the interview data from 

Michigan, USA and Sweden, along with data from my previous research (Goguen et al., 2018; 

Goguen & Riley, 2020) and studies conducted in collaboration with Swedish colleagues to 

identify similarities and differences in the ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat under 

different governance structures (i.e. with and without formal markets for wildlife meat). 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Alexander, K. A., Sanderson, C. E., Marathe, M., Lewis, B. L., Rivers, C. M., Shaman, J., Drake, 
J. M., Lofgren, E., Dato, V. M., Eisenberg, M. C. & Eubank, S. (2015). What factors 
might have led to the emergence of Ebola in West Africa? PLoS neglected tropical 
diseases, 9(6). 

Bell, D., Roberton, S., & Hunter, P. R. (2004). Animal origins of SARS coronavirus: possible 
links with the international trade in small carnivores. Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1447), 1107-1114. 

Bennett, E. L., & Robinson, J. G. (2000). Hunting of wildlife in tropical forests: implications for 

biodiversity and forest peoples. The World Bank.  

Bryant, C. A., DeWalt, K. M., Courtney, A., & Schwarts, J. (2003). The cultural feast: An 

introduction to food and society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Bureš, D., Bartoň, L., Kotrba, R., & Hakl, J. (2015). Quality attributes and composition of meat 

from red deer (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama dama) and Aberdeen Angus and 
Holstein cattle (Bos taurus). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(11), 
2299-2306. 

Cerulli, T. (2012). The mindful carnivore: A vegetarian’s hunt for sustenance. Pegasus Books. 

Chausson, A. M., Rowcliffe, J. M., Escouflaire, L., Wieland, M., & Wright, J. H. (2019). 

Understanding the sociocultural drivers of urban bushmeat consumption for behavior 
change interventions in Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo. Human Ecology, 47(2), 179-
191. 

Cordain, L., Watkins, B. A., Florant, G. L., Kelher, M., Rogers, L., & Li, Y. (2002). Fatty acid 

analysis of wild ruminant tissues: evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related 
chronic disease. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 56(3), 181. 

Corradini, A., Marescotti, M. E., Demartini, E., & Gaviglio, A. (2022). Consumers' perceptions 
and attitudes toward hunted wild game meat in the modern world: A literature 
review. Meat Science, 194, 108955. 

Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & 

Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how 
far do we still need to go?. Ecosystem Services, 28, 1-16. 

Danieli, P. P., Serrani, F., Primi, R., Ponzetta, M. P., Ronchi, B., & Amici, A. (2012). Cadmium, 
lead, and chromium in large game: a local-scale exposure assessment for hunters 
consuming meat and liver of wild boar. Archives of environmental contamination and 
toxicology, 63(4), 612-627. 

Food Law, Act 92 of 2000 (2000). Michigan. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-act-92-of-

2000. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Gee, K., & Burkhard, B. (2010). Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind 
farming: a case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological 
Complexity, 7(3), 349-358. 

Geist, V. (1988). How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, 

jeopardize wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 2(1), 15–26.  

Gill, C. O. (2007). Microbiological conditions of meats from large game animals and birds. Meat 

Science, 77(2), 149–160. 

Goguen, A. D. & Riley, S. J. (2020). Consumption of Wild-Harvested Meat in Society. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, 44(3), 553 - 563.   

Goguen, A. D., Riley, S. J., Organ, J. F., & Rudolph, B. A. (2018). Wild-harvested venison 

yields and sharing by Michigan deer hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(3), 197-
212. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Cawthorn, D. M. (2012). What is the role and contribution of meat from 

wildlife in providing high quality protein for consumption?  Animal Frontiers, 2(4), 40-
53. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006). Game and venison–meat for the modern consumer. Meat 

Science, 74(1), 197-208. 

Iqbal, S., Blumenthal, W., Kennedy, C., Yip, F. Y., Pickard, S., Flanders, W. D., Loringer, K., 

Kruger, K., Caldwell, K. J., & Brown, M. J. (2009). Hunting with lead: Association 
between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. Environmental Research, 109(8), 
952–959. 

Kaltenborn, B. P., Linnell, J. D., Baggethun, E. G., Lindhjem, H., Thomassen, J., & Chan, K. M. 

(2017). Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A 
case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological 
Economics, 140, 166-176. 

Larsen, C. S. (2003). Animal source foods and human health during evolution. The Journal of 

Nutrition, 133(11), 3893S-3897S.  

Mainka, S., & Trivedi, M. (Eds.) (2002). Links between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods 
and Food Security: The sustainable use of wild species for meat.  International Union for 
Conservation of Nature.  

Marchello, M. J., Berg, P. T., Slanger, W. D., & Harrold, R. L. (1985). Cutability and nutrient 

content of white-tailed deer. Journal of Food Quality, 7(4), 267–275.  

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Current 

state and trends (Vol.1). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

Morsello, C., Yagüe, B., Beltreschi, L., Van Vliet, N., Adams, C., Schor, T., Quiceno-Mesa, M. 

7 

 
 
 
 
P., & Cruz, D. (2015). Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption 
and preference than economic factors among urban Amazonians from Brazil and 
Colombia. Ecology and Society, 20(4). 

Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G., & Christophersen, T. 

(2008). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis 
(Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 33). Retrieved from 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-33-en.pdf 

Nasi, R., Taber, A., & Van Vliet, N. (2011). Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and 

livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13(3), 355-
368. 

Nelson, M., Wright, T. L., Pierce, A., & Krogwold, R. A. (2003). A common-source outbreak to 
trichinosis from consumption of bear meat. Journal of Environmental Health, 65(9), 16-
19. 

New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 3039, New Jersey 216th Legislator, Introduced Marched 24, 2014. 

Paulsen, P., Bauer, A., & Smulders, F. J. M. (Eds.). (2014). Trends in game meat hygiene: From 

forest to fork. Wageningen, NL: Wageningen Academic Publishers  

Ramanzin, M., Amici, A., Casoli, C., Esposito, L., Lupi, P., Marsico, G., Mattiello, S., Olovoeri, 

O., Ponzetta, M. P., Russo, C., & Marinucci, M. T. (2010). Meat from wild ungulates: 
ensuring quality and hygiene of an increasing resource. Italian Journal of Animal 
Science, 9(3), 318-331. 

Ross, R. D., Stec, L. A., Werner, J. C., Blumenkranz, M. S., Glazer, L., & Williams, G. A. 

(2001). Presumed acquired ocular toxoplasmosis in deer hunters. Retina, 21(3), 226–229. 

Schenck, M., Nsame Effa, E., Starkey, M., Wilkie, D., Abernethy, K., Telfer, P., Godoy, R., & 

Treves, A. (2006). Why people eat bushmeat: results from two-choice, taste tests in 
Gabon, Central Africa. Human ecology, 34(3), 433-445. 

Stanford, C. B., & Bunn, H. T. (Eds.). (2001). Meat-eating and human evolution. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.  

Thogmartin, W. (2006). Why not consider the commercialization of deer harvests? BioScience, 

56, 957.  

Van Vliet, N., & Mbazza, P. (2011). Recognizing the multiple reasons for bushmeat 

consumption in urban areas: a necessary step toward the sustainable use of wildlife for 
food in Central Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(1), 45-54. 

Volpato, G., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Gruppuso, P., Zocchi, D. M., & Pieroni, A. (2020). Baby 

pangolins on my plate: possible lessons to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal 
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16(19), 1-12.  

8 

 
 
 
 
Warenik-Bany, M., Strucinski, P., & Piskorska-Pliszczynska, J. (2016). Dioxins and PCBs in 
game animals: interspecies comparison and related consumer exposure. Environment 
International, 89-90, 21-29. 

Watkin Lui, F., Stoeckl, N., Delisle, A., Kiatkoski Kim, M., & Marsh, H. (2016). Motivations for 
sharing bushmeat with an urban diaspora in Indigenous Australia. Human Dimensions of 
Wildlife, 21(4), 345-360. 

Wilkie, D. S., & Carpenter, J. F. (1999). Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: an assessment of 
impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 8(7), 927-955. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2: WILDLIFE MEAT PROVIDES ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 

Abstract 

Ecosystem services are ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that benefit 

humans directly or indirectly, consciously or un-consciously; or simply, the benefits that people 

derive from nature. In this chapter, I explore previous research to construct a comprehensive 

assessment of the ecosystem services and disservices provided by wildlife meat. I examine how 

wildlife meat provides a unique example of a synergistic relationship between two ecosystem 

services: Wildlife meat is a provisional ecosystem service that also provides cultural ecosystem 

services. In this way, wildlife meat is polysemic; it can carry multiple meanings simultaneously. 

Wildlife meat refers to the meat from free-ranging mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians that 

are not cultivated, domesticated, or tamed. Meat and other parts from harvested wildlife provide 

provisional ecosystem services in the form of food; ornamental resources; or biochemicals, 

natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals. Wildlife meat is a source of lean protein, high in energy 

content and essential macronutrients, and contributes substantially to food and economic security 

around the world. Although much of the research on wildlife meat emphasizes its nutritional and 

economic importance, there has been recent interest in understanding how the cultural 

importance of wildlife meat influences its use. Food is more than just something we eat; food 

also has non-nutritional functions. Food practices serve economic, political, recreational, social, 

aesthetic, religious, ceremonial, magical, legal, and medicinal functions. These properties can be 

applied to wildlife meat. I determined that wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services in 

the form of social relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, spiritual and religious, knowledge 

systems, sense of place, and recreation and tourism. However, wildlife meat may also provide 

disservices in the form of biological, chemical, and physical risks. Recognizing how wildlife 

10 

 
 
 
 
meat simultaneously generates services and disservices enables a more complete assessment of 

the use and value of wildlife meat to society, which is important for public health, cultural 

preservation, and managing wildlife populations. 

Ecosystems Services Framework 

Ecosystem services are ecological characteristics, functions, or processes that benefit 

humans directly or indirectly, consciously or un-consciously (Costanza et al., 2017), or simply 

the benefits that people derive from nature (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA], 2005). 

The MEA classifies ecosystem services into four categories: supporting services are necessary to 

produce other services (ex. nutrient cycling); regulating services are the benefits obtained from 

the regulation of ecosystem processes (ex. water purification); provisioning services are the 

tangible products obtained from ecosystems (ex. food); and cultural services are the non-material 

benefits obtained from ecosystems (ex. recreation) (MEA, 2005) (Figure 2.1). Although 

alternative classifications are emerging (Díaz et al., 2019), in this paper I use the original MEA 

classifications because of their widespread use and understanding.  

Tradeoffs and synergies are interactions between and within ecosystem services 

categories (Mouchet et al., 2014). Tradeoffs occur when there is a negative relationship between 

two ecosystem services (Cord et al, 2017; Lee & Lautenbach, 2016; Mouchet et al., 2014). For 

instance, when one ecosystem service increases and another decreases (Bennet et al., 2009; 

Howe et al., 2014).  Synergies occur when there is a positive association between two ecosystem 

services (Cord et al, 2017; Lee & Lautenbach, 2016; Mouchet et al., 2014). For example, when 

increases in one ecosystem service increases another (Bennet et al., 2009; Howe et al., 2014).  

The ecosystem services framework is a holistic and transferable conceptual construct 

useful for identifying the diverse linkages between people and nature by recognizing nature’s 

11 

 
 
 
 
contributions to human well-being (Costanza et al., 2017; Gee & Burkhard, 2010; Kaltenborn et 

al., 2017; MEA, 2005). The ecosystem services framework was designed to improve assessment 

and decision making related to natural resources conservation (Chan et al., 2012; Kaltenborn et 

al., 2017; Satz et al., 2013). Although popular and widely accepted (Costanza et al., 2017; Daniel 

et al., 2012), the ecosystems services framework has many critics. Rooted in ecological 

economics, it has been criticized for its economic valuation and commodification of nature (M. J. 

Peterson et al., 2010; Plieninger et al., 2015; Pröpper & Haupts, 2014). A focus on purely 

economic valuation classifies some ecosystem services above others because they are easier to 

measure in economic terms (Scholte et al., 2015). The ecosystem services framework also has 

been criticized for being anthropocentric (Kaltenborn et al., 2017), rooted in Western ideology 

(Pröpper & Haupts, 2014), and based in a natural science paradigm (ecocentic), which may 

exclude social science perspectives (Binder et al., 2013; Tengberg et al., 2012). Despite these 

limitations, the ecosystem services framework still provides a comprehensive way to capture the 

many complex ways people use and benefit from wildlife meat.  

In this chapter, I explore previous research to construct a comprehensive assessment of 

the ecosystem services and disservices provided by wildlife meat. I explore how wildlife meat 

provides a unique example of a synergist relationship between two ecosystem services: Wildlife 

meat is a provisional ecosystem service that provides cultural ecosystem services. Recognizing 

this co-generation of services and disservices provided by wildlife meat enables more complete 

assessment of the use and value of wildlife meat to society, which is important for public health, 

cultural preservation, and managing wildlife populations. 

Wildlife Meat 

For purposes of this dissertation wildlife meat refers to the meat of free-ranging 

12 

 
 
 
 
mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians that are not cultivated, domesticated, or tamed (Food 

Law, 2000; Nasi et al., 2008). The term “meat” refers to the parts of the animal used for human 

consumption, which vary from culture to culture, but are broadly identified as the muscle, 

viscera, skeleton, and associated body tissues (Stanford & Bunn, 2001). Other common terms for 

wildlife meat are game meat, bushmeat, wild-harvested meat, or wild meat.  I use the term 

wildlife meat because it clearly identifies the source (wildlife) and animal parts (meat), while 

remaining a relatively broad term. Defining what constitutes wildlife (and thus wildlife meat) is 

difficult, as the difference between domestic and wild is blurred by wildlife farming, high fence 

hunting operations, supplemental feeding, and wildlife herding (Geist, 1988). Although insects, 

fish, and shellfish are a valuable protein source (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012), whether they are 

considered wildlife meat is debated (Chardonnet et al., 2002; Nasi et al., 2008). Insects, fish, and 

shellfish are not considered in this dissertation. Wildlife meat may be procured legally or 

illegally. The illegal harvest of wildlife is a known threat to wildlife populations globally (Nasi et 

al., 2008; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011), and issues of governance are considered in Chapter 5 of 

this dissertation. However, in this chapter, I am not concerned with the legality of the harvest, 

but the ecosystem services it provides, as wildlife meat provides benefits regardless of the 

legality of its harvest. 

Wildlife Meat as a Provisional Ecosystem Service 

Provisional ecosystem services are tangible services people receive from ecosystems 

(MEA, 2005). They are categorized as: food or fiber; fuel; genetic resources; biochemicals, 

natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals; ornamental resources; and fresh water (MEA, 2005).  

Harvests of wildlife yield meat and other animal parts (e.g. hides) that can be used for 

consumption (food), décor and handicrafts (ornamental resources), or zootherapeutic remedies 

13 

 
 
 
 
(biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals) (Table 2.1) (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 

2012; Klemens & Thorbjarnarson, 1995; Souto et al., 2018). I focus most of the discussion 

below on wildlife meat as food; however, the other provisional ecosystem services wildlife meat 

provides are tied to wildlife harvest and consumption patterns. These links are important to 

consider when taking a systems approach as they are interconnected with the cultural ecosystem 

services wildlife meat provides.  

Food  

Wildlife meat is a provisional ecosystem service because people throughout the world 

consume wildlife as food (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012). Humans have been using animals for 

food for an estimated five million years (Larsen, 2003). I review how wildlife meat is used as 

food by describing its nutritional value, as well as harvest and consumption patterns. Wildlife 

meat contributes to people’s livelihoods through the provision of meat for consumption or sale 

(illegal or legal) (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012; Van Vliet et al., 2016). Food security in many 

countries is linked to the consumption of wildlife meat, creating confounding conservation issues 

balancing local livelihoods and wildlife populations (Richardson, 2010). Although a majority of 

examples are from wildlife meat being used for subsistence, wildlife meat does not need to be 

consumed at a subsistence level to provide benefits to humans (Goguen et al., 2018; Goguen & 

Riley, 2020).  Regardless of the frequency of consumption, wildlife meat provides nutritional 

benefits, not to mention its potential cultural importance (discussed later in this chapter). 

Nutritional Value of Wildlife Meat 

Wildlife meat is a source of lean protein, high in energy content and essential 

macronutrients (Bureš et al., 2015; Cordain et al., 2002; Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006; Marchello 

et al., 1985). For example, venison (deer meat) has a lower fat content and higher protein, 

14 

 
 
 
 
Omega-3 Fatty Acid, Vitamin B-12, and iron content than domestic beef (Bureš et al., 2015; 

Marchello et al., 1985; Polak et al., 2008; Ramanzin et al., 2010; Strazdiņa et al., 2013; United 

States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2015; Zomborszky et al., 1996) (Note: Data from 

Bureš et al., 2015 is farm-raised deer, source of USDA venison (farm-raised or wild) cannot be 

determined, all other references are from wild sources). The meat of African ungulates, 

Camillidae, rodents, ratites, and reptiles has low levels of lipids and cholesterol, and low ratios of 

saturated fatty acids to high polyunsaturated fatty acids (Hoffman, 2008). A review of the 

composition of meat from capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), rhea (Rhea spp.), guanaco 

(Lama guanicoe), llama (Lama glama), nutria (Myocastor coypus), and the tegu lizard 

(Tupinambis s.) in South America report similar results (Saadoun & Cabrera, 2008). 

Additionally, wildlife meat is thought to be free of antibiotics, hormone supplements, and other 

additives, and is not subject to engineered genetic modifications (GMO), although wildlife may 

still consume GMO crops (Radder & Le Roux, 2005). Depending on the harvest location, 

wildlife meat can also be considered a local food product (Cerulli, 2012; M. N. Peterson et al., 

2010; Tidball et al., 2014). Despite the research discussed above, considerable knowledge gaps 

still exist regarding the nutritional values of wildlife meat (Tidball et al., 2014).  

Wildlife Meat Harvest and Consumption Patterns 

The magnitude and extent of wildlife meat consumption varies based on availability, 

hunting regulations, consumers’ socio-economic status, and culture (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997). 

Incomplete data for wildlife harvest and consumption patterns make global estimates of these 

parameters difficult (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997). Here, I highlight some examples of wildlife harvest 

and consumption rates as evidence of wildlife meat being used as food (a provisional ecosystem 

service).  

15 

 
 
 
 
In Africa, wildlife meat (often referred to as bushmeat) is one of the most valued and 

preferred protein sources in the diets of both urban and rural inhabitants (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997). 

Hundreds of species belonging to at least 236 genera are consumed (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 

2012). Wildlife meat is estimated to be 20% - 90% of all animal protein consumed in Africa 

(Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997). At the turn of the 21st century, it was 

estimated that 3.4 million tons of wildlife meat were produced annually in Central Africa 

(Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012). Other estimates suggest greater than 4.9 million tons of wildlife 

meat are harvested in Afrotropical forests annually, which supply food to millions of people (Fa 

et al., 2002). 

Although harvest rates are estimated to be less in South America (0.15 million tons) than 

Africa (4.9 million tons) (Fa et al., 2002), wildlife meat is consumed regularly in many regions 

of South America. Non-indigenous inhabitants of the Argentine Chaco consume an estimated 

59,700 kg per year of wildlife meat, which averages out to consuming wildlife meat 7.7 days per 

month per household (Altrichter, 2006). Rural and indigenous communities living in the Amazon 

are estimated to extract at least 67,000 tons of wildlife meat annually (Valencia-Aguilar et al., 

2013). Wildlife meat comprises an estimated 30% - 50% of the overall animal protein 

consumption in rural communities of Central and South America (León & Montiel, 2008). 

In Europe, wildlife meat is sold legally in restaurants and grocery stores. In Hungary, an 

estimated 14,000 tons of wildlife meat from Red deer (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama 

dama), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), mouflon (Ovis orientalis orientalis), and wild boar (Sus 

scrofa) were produced in 2012, and the amount is increasing each year (Bleier et al., 2013). 

During the 2010-2011 hunting season in Sweden, an estimated 17,000 tons of wildlife meat were 

harvested; Moose (Alces alces) comprised 67% (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Nearly 65% of 

16 

 
 
 
 
non-hunters report consuming wildlife meat at least once per year in Sweden (Ljung et al., 2012). 

In Germany, an estimated 0.9 kg per person per year of wildlife meat is consumed from a 40,000 

metric tons annual harvest (Atanassova et al., 2008). Consumption rates in Austria and 

Switzerland range from 0.6–1kg per person per year (Atanassova et al., 2008).  

Wildlife meat is regularly consumed in the United States by subsistence and non-

subsistence communities, mainly distributed through hunters’ social networks (Goguen & Riley, 

2020; Goguen et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018). An estimated 42% of the U.S. population 

consume wildlife meat annually (National Shooting Sports Foundation, 2011). Many Alaskans 

rely on wildlife meat for a significant part of their diet (Titus et al., 2009). The annual harvest of 

wildlife meat in Alaska provides 170 kg of wildlife meat per person per year in rural areas and 

10 kg per person per year in urban areas (Titus et al., 2009). In rural areas of Alaska, 60% of 

households harvest wildlife meat, and 86% of rural residents report consuming wildlife meat 

(Titus et al., 2009). An estimated 11,402–14,473 metric tons of venison from white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus) is harvested by Michigan hunters annually (Goguen et al., 2018). An 

estimated 75% of the Michigan population has consumed wildlife meat at some point in their 

life; 49% consume venison annually; and 14% consume venison more than 10 times a year 

(Goguen & Riley, 2020). There is speculation that wildlife meat may play an important and often 

overlooked role in the diets of U.S. license purchasing hunters and their families (Burger, 2000 

& 2002; Tidball et al., 2013).  

One overlooked source of wildlife meat is marine mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.  

Since the 1970s, 92 marine mammal species have been consumed in over 125 countries, and at 

least 27 countries were found to use 100s of marine mammals for food each year (Robards & 

Reeves, 2011). Many species of amphibians and reptiles are an important protein source to 

17 

 
 
 
 
communities around the world (Hoffman, 2008; Klemens & Thorbjarnarson, 1995; Valencia-

Aguilar et al., 2013). Turtles are the most heavily exploited reptile used for human consumption 

(Hoffman, 2008; Klemens & Thorbjarnarson, 1995). Much attention has been paid to the large-

scale harvest of South American river turtles (Podocnemis s.) for eggs and meat (Klemens & 

Thorbjarnarson, 1995). Alligator snapping turtles (Macrochelys temminckii) and common 

snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentine) are consumed in North America (Goguen & Riley, 2020; 

Klemens & Thorbjarnarson, 1995). There is extensive documentation of the harvesting of sea 

turtles for meat, eggs, oil, and shells (Klemens & Thorbjarnarson, 1995). Snake meat is regularly 

consumed in southeast Asia (Klemens & Thorbjarnarson, 1995; Zhang et al., 2008). Worldwide, 

crocodilians are harvested for meat and skin (Hoffman 2008; Joanen et al., 1997; Klemens & 

Thorbjarnarson, 1995). Amphibians from the families Hylidae, Bufanidae, and Leprodactylidae 

yield provisioning ecosystem services to human societies in neotropical ecosystems (Valencia-

Aguilar et al., 2013).  

Ornamental Resources 

Ornamental resources are raw materials from ecosystems that are used as decoration or in 

the creation of other goods and handicrafts (MEA, 2005). In some cases, wildlife meat (muscle, 

viscera, skeleton, and associated body tissues) is used as an ornamental resource; however, other 

animal parts, not intended for consumption, are more commonly used for décor and handicrafts 

(MEA, 2005). Although some items discussed in this section may not be derived from wildlife 

meat, it is still important to explore their use, as harvest for consumption and ornamental use can 

be interlinked. Below are a few examples of the myriad ways harvested wildlife are used as 

ornamental resources. Seal skins, narwhal (Monodon monoceros) ivory, and muskox (Ovibos 

moschatus) wool are all used as ornamental resources in the Canadian Artic (Condon et al., 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
1995). The non-indigenous inhabitants of the Argentine Chaco often have animal parts as 

decorations in their homes, such as cat or anteater skins and armadillo shells (Altrichter, 2006). 

The skins of lizards, crocodilians, and snakes are popular worldwide for leather goods 

(Chardonnet et al., 2002). Iguana skin is used in Costa Rica and Nicaragua for crafts such as 

purses, wallets, and shoes (Valencia-Aguilar et al., 2013). The leather produced from capybara 

hides is used to make gloves, belts, jackets, and handbags in South America (Saadoun & 

Cabrera, 2008). In the Greater Yellow Stone Ecosystem in the United States, antlers are used or 

sold for use in art and ornamentation (Maher et al., 2023). Although cooked meat is typically not 

an ornamental resource, masterfully cooked and decoratively plated pieces of meat might be 

considered art in the visual sense.  

Biochemicals, Natural Medicines, and Pharmaceuticals 

Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals are products such as medicines, 

biocides, food additives, and other biological materials that are derived from ecosystems (MEA, 

2005). Wildlife meat and other animal parts are believed to contain medicinal or healing 

properties (Suoto et al., 2018). People use these zootherapeutics for socioeconomic or cultural 

reasons. A well-known example of wildlife used for medicinal purposes is traditional Chinese 

medicine, thought to be a contributor to the illegal harvest of wildlife (Manika & Mills, 1995; 

Mills & Servheen, 1994; Still, 2003). For example, bear paws are used to make bear paw soup, a 

delicacy with alleged medicinal properties such as vitality (Ellis, 2013; Mills & Servheen, 1994). 

The Koya and Guthikoya tribes of the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh, India use the meat of 

Russell’s viper (Vipera russelli), Bengal monitor lizard (Varanus bengalensis), tawny owl (Strix 

aluco nivicola), ass (Equus s.), leopard (Panthera pardus), buffalo (Bubalus s.) and barking deer 

(Muntiacus muntjac) to promote strength and virility (Benarjee et al., 2010). Meat from the 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Indian jackal (Canis aureus indicus) and Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) are thought to cure 

asthma and other ailments (Benarjee et al., 2010). In their study of Mexican traditional medicine, 

Alonso-Castro (2014) reported 163 animal species were used for medical purposes in Mexico 

(48 birds, 3 fish, 22 insects, 49 mammals, and 41 reptiles). For example the meat of doves 

(Columbina s.) was thought to cure fever, the meat of white-tailed deer in soup was used to help 

fertility, or the meat of american hog-nosed skunk (Conepatus leuconotus) cooked in a soup was 

used for stomach ache (Alonso-Castro, 2014). Meat was identified as the most important 

medicinal animal part harvested by hunters in the semi-arid state of Paraiba in northeastern 

Brazil (Souto et al., 2018). Specifically, the meat of 57 species were used for medicinal purposes 

(Souto et al., 2018). 

Reptile meat is considered to have many medicinal benefits (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 

2012; Klemens & Thorbjarnarson, 1995). In communities across Latin and South America, more 

than 60 amphibian and reptile species are used for medicinal purposes (Valencia-Aguilar et al., 

2013). The non-indigenous inhabitants of the Argentine Chaco use fat from the tegu lizard for 

ailments such as cuts, snakebites, and colds, and fat from pumas (Puma concolor) and boas for 

contusions and muscular pain (Altrichter, 2006). Non-indigenous rural inhabitants of east 

Paraguay believe that tegu lizard meat can fortify blood and its tongue can be used for snake 

bites (Norman, 1987). The granular glands of amphibian skin produce a wide range of chemical 

compounds that are used medicinally (Valencia-Aguilar et al., 2013).  

Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Wildlife Meat 

Cultural ecosystem services are difficult to quantify and measure; these services are often 

referred to as the non-tangible benefits people derive from natural systems (MEA, 2005).  

Cultural ecosystem services can be categorized as: recreation and tourism, aesthetic, bequest, 

20 

 
 
 
 
intrinsic and existence, spiritual and religious, educational, knowledge systems, social relations, 

cultural identity, cultural heritage, cultural diversity, inspiration, and sense of place (Hernández-

Morcillo et al., 2013; MEA, 2005; Milcu et al., 2013). However, categorizing cultural ecosystem 

services is challenging because categories overlap and sometimes cannot be treated 

independently (Gee & Burkhard, 2010; MEA, 2005; Plieninger et al., 2013). Below, I identify 

that wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services in the form of social relations, cultural 

identity, cultural heritage, spiritual and religious, knowledge systems, sense of place, and 

recreation and tourism. In the literature, I did not find evidence for wildlife meat providing 

educational, inspiration, aesthetic, or bequest, intrinsic, and existence cultural ecosystem 

services.  However, this does not mean wildlife meat cannot provide these services, just that 

current evidence is lacking.   

In this chapter, many examples of cultural services are derived from indigenous or 

subsistence communities’ use of wildlife meat. Few examples exist in the literature outside this 

context. This is not to imply wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services only when used 

by indigenous or subsistence communities; more research is needed on the use of wildlife meat 

in other contexts. My application of the ecosystem services framework to indigenous and 

subsistence communities’ use of wildlife meat can be critiqued for imposing western conceptions 

of natural resource use on non-western communities (Pröpper & Haupts, 2014; Stålhammar & 

Pedersen, 2017). Furthermore, the ecosystem services framework, and cultural ecosystem 

services specifically, does not always recognize the unique and varied connections with nature 

represented in some indigenous ontologies (Stålhammar & Pedersen, 2017). Cultures perceive, 

experience, and value cultural ecosystem services differently (MEA, 2005).  

Despite these critiques, I believe the ecosystem services framework provides a useful 

21 

 
 
 
 
heuristic for identifying the cultural importance of wildlife meat. Much of the research on 

wildlife meat emphasizes its nutritional and economic importance (Brashares et al., 2011; Nasi et 

al., 2008; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011).  Nonetheless, there is value in understanding how the 

cultural importance of wildlife meat influences and is influenced by consumption (Ljung et al, 

2012; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Food is more than just something 

that is eaten – it has non-nutritional functions (Bryant et al., 2003). Food practices are key 

elements of many cultures and serve economic, political, recreational, social, aesthetic, religious, 

ceremonial, magical, legal and medical functions (Bryant et al., 2003). These properties are true 

of wildlife meat. Many of the cultural ecosystem services derived from wildlife meat stem from 

its role as food.  

Social Relations  

Social relations produced or influenced by ecosystems are a cultural ecosystem service 

(MEA, 2005). Ecosystems provide opportunities for creating or enhancing relationships and 

strengthening communities (Calvet-Mir et al., 2012). Food is used to create and maintain social 

relations, as a mechanism of socialization, and as a symbol of prestige and social status (Bryant 

et al., 2003; Quandt et al., 2001). Wildlife meat has long played an important social role in 

human societies (Smil, 2002). It is theorized that the origins of human intelligence and sociality 

are linked to wildlife meat due to the cognitive abilities needed for acquiring and sharing meat 

(Smil, 2002).  

Subsistence activities, including the sharing of wildlife meat, are important for social 

relations in indigenous communities of the Alaskan and Canadian Artic (Condon et al., 1995; 

Dombrowski, 2007; Omura, 2013). Among Holman Inuit of Canada, the sharing of subsistence 

foods (including wildlife meat) is important for community integration, kinship and friendship 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
ties, and denoting respect between hunting households (Condon et al., 1995). The harvesting and 

processing of wildlife meat also fosters relationships in indigenous subsistence communities in 

southeast Alaska (Dombrowski, 2007). In these communities, subsistence foods, including 

wildlife meat, are used by high-ranking community members to forge economic and political 

relationships inside and outside of the community (Dombrowski, 2007). Inuit from the village of 

Kagaaruk in the Canadian central Artic have five types of systems to distribute meat, based on 

the social relations the sharing produces or maintains, which suggests that sharing wildlife meat 

is central to the construction of social relationships in those communities (Omura, 2013). 

Wildlife meat is an essential element of community for Inuit in northwest Greenland where it is 

shared to express hospitality, provide mutual aid, and as a gift (Nuttall, 1991). The Torres 

Straight Islanders of Australia share wildlife meat—turtle and dugong meat in particular—to 

maintain relationships and honor elders (Watkin Lui et al., 2016). When visiting family that live 

outside the Torres Straight area, sharing wildlife meat is a way of demonstrating the importance 

of that relationship because wildlife meat is considered special (Watkin Lui et al., 2016). In the 

subsistence community of Conambo in the Ecuadorian Amazon, wildlife meat is strategically 

shared to recruit and secure political allies (Patton, 2005). 

Wildlife meat can also be important for social relations in non-subsistence communities. 

In the mid-1990s, Orion – the Hunters Institute began hosting Windsor Dinners that utilized the 

sharing of wildlife meat to bring together people with diverse perspectives on hunting (hunters, 

non-hunters, and anti-hunters) and create shared experiences and connections (Fergus, 1996). 

The sharing of wildlife meat is sometimes used to provide for those in need; supporting the 

community is a type of social relation. Hunters for the Hungry is a program in the US that 

provides donated wildlife meat to those in need (Heffelfinger, 2014). In 2012-2013, the program 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
donated 2.2 million pounds of venison nationwide, providing 8.8 million meals (Heffelfinger, 

2014). Much of the previously discussed sharing that occurs in subsistence communities also 

serves to support those in need within the community.  

One social function of being a hunter, particularly a successful hunter, is the development 

of social capital, respect, prestige, and status through the possession of wildlife meat (Fischer et 

al., 2013; Van Vliet et al., 2016). The sharing of country foods (including wildlife meat) by Inuit 

of the Canadian Artic generates social capital within the community (Gombay, 2005). 

Historically, in medieval Europe, venison was only available to the rich and influential, and thus 

a symbol of the ruling elite (Heffelfinger, 2014). Venison was the ultimate high-status food; 

having venison on the table was a demonstration or advertisement of status (Fletcher, 2011). 

Wildlife meat still maintains its high status in some cultures. In China, eating wildlife meat is a 

status symbol and used as part of a “fashionable lifestyle” (Zhang et al., 2008).  

Cultural Identity  

The formation or thickening of cultural identity can be tied to an ecosystem or its 

components (Chan et al., 2012). Food and food consumption can be a powerful symbol or 

marker of cultural identity (Bryant et al., 2003; Fischler, 1988). These meanings are not inherent, 

but socially constructed, and dependent on context (Murcott, 1982). Wildlife meat can be a 

culturally significant food tied to identity (Ngade et al., 2017), thus providing cultural ecosystem 

services. Among Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, subsistence foods such as wildlife meat play an 

important role in the construction and performance of cultural identity (Dombrowski, 2007; 

Searles, 2002). Meat from wildlife hunted through subsistence activities is considered an 

indispensable “real food” that maintains Inuit identity (Omura, 2013). Subsistence foods can be a 

cultural object, a tangible and tasty marker of identity, that when consumed can function as a 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
statement of identity (Searles, 2016). Food sharing is part of Inuit ideology; Holman Inuit who 

did not participate in substance food sharing reported feeling more separated from their cultural 

identity (Condon et al., 1995).  

For the Torres Straight Islanders of Australia, dugong and turtle meat strongly relate to 

their cultural identity (Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Sharing wildlife meat is an important cultural act 

and a means for maintaining culture and identity, while simultaneously slowing cultural erosion 

(Watkin Lui et al., 2016).  Cultural attachment to bushmeat is an important driver of 

consumption and trade in Central Africa (Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011). Consuming wildlife meat 

is a cultural preference and connects urban consumers to rural village life (Van Vliet & Mbazza, 

2011). A study of factors affecting wildlife meat consumption in Bata, Equatorial Guinea found 

that nationality and ethnicity predicted meat consumption, quantifying the connection between 

identity and wildlife meat consumption (East et al., 2005). First and second-generation African 

expatriates living in New York and Atlanta reported that eating wildlife meat was a way to share 

their culture with friends and family (Bair-Brake et al., 2014). Sharing and consuming wildlife 

meat can be a way to preform or share culture, or connect people with a cultural identity.  

Cultural Heritage  

Under the ecosystem services framework, cultural heritage is defined as the “legacy of 

biophysical features, physical artifacts, and intangible attributes (related to the natural world) of 

a group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present, and 

bestowed for the benefit of future generations” (Daniel et al., 2012, p.8814). Services that create 

cultural heritage connect people to their collective and individual roots or histories (Tengberg et 

al., 2012). Cultural heritage and identity are linked (Tengberg et al., 2012). Wildlife meat is a 

physical part of the natural world that serves as a totem for stories and memories, is involved in 

25 

 
 
 
 
traditions, and the creation of knowledge. These stories, traditions, and knowledge are passed 

down through generations, as part of a hunter’s cultural heritage. 

Subsistence hunting and the consumption of wildlife meat are traditions in the Canadian 

Arctic; the continuation of these traditional activities maintains continuity with the past (Condon 

et al., 1995). For Torres Straight Islanders in Australia, sharing wildlife meat is a way to explain 

and transmit culture to younger generations, connecting youth to their cultural heritage (Watkin 

Lui et al., 2016). Consumers of wildlife meat in Port Elizabeth South Africa value wildlife meat 

for its tradition and considered wildlife meat an old-fashioned food associated with “the way 

back” (Radder & Grunert, 2009).  

Spiritual and Religious  

Spiritual and religious values can be attached to ecosystems and their components (MEA, 

2005). Ecosystems can also be a source of inspiration for religious or spiritual thought and 

experience (Chan et al., 2012). Food can be sacred and connect people to their faith (Mintz & 

DuBois, 2002). Food is used in ceremonies and rituals, holds symbolic values, and can be 

embedded in belief systems (Mintz & DuBois, 2002). Wildlife meat is used during ceremonies 

and rituals due to its cultural, religious, or spiritual significance (Van Vliet et al., 2016). Cultures 

and religions use wildlife meat in different ways, and the species used vary based on their 

symbolic value (Valencia-Aguilar et al., 2013). Sharing of moose, caribou, and deer meat are 

important for Inuit ceremonies in the Alaskan and Canadian Artic (Dombrowski, 2007; Titus et 

al., 2009). Inuit believe that wildlife possess a spirit that is immortal; in order for the spirit to be 

reborn, it must be consumed by people with the correct intentions and attitudes (Omura, 2013). 

Sharing and consuming wildlife meat helps the spirit separate from the animal body and take a 

new form, continuing the cycle of life (Omura, 2013). Inuit of northwest Greenland find sharing 

26 

 
 
 
 
wildlife meat to be a spiritual act: they believe the seal gives its life to the hunter, thus the hunter 

must share its life with other people by sharing the gift of its meat (Nuttall, 1991).  

Torres Straight Islanders of Australia refer to dugong meat as “soul food”, emphasizing 

its spiritual significance in ceremonies such as tombstone openings, weddings, Mabo day 

(celebrates indigenous land rights), the “Coming of the Light” ceremony (commemorates the 

adoption of Christianity), and birthdays (Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Members of the Mishmi tribe 

in the state of Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India give fresh dried wildlife meat to village 

priests and guests as a traditional practice during weddings (Aiyadurai et al., 2010). The Yakama 

of the Pacific Northwest use wildlife as a ceremonial meat during tribal funerals, memorials, 

name-giving ceremonies, weddings, and other celebrations (McCorquodale, 1997). Wildlife meat 

and other animal parts are used in cultural and religious ceremonies in rural Nigeria, such as 

masquerades, death ceremonies, and the installation of traditional rulers  (Adeola, 1992). Bay 

duiker (Cephalophus dorsalis) is consumed during burials by the Anyanh people in southwest 

Cameron (Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011). Rates of wildlife harvest in the village of Ntsieté, Gabon 

increase during the dry season because wildlife meat plays a role in the circumcision ceremonies 

that occur during this time (Van Vliet & Nasi, 2008). The Afro-Brazilian religion of Candomlé 

ritually sacrifice wildlife to gain or maintain connections with deities (Neto et al., 2009; 

Valencia-Aguilar et al., 2013). Special parts of the animal (such as the heart, liver, or lungs) are 

offered to the deities, while the remaining meat is eaten during communal feasts, signifying the 

link between people and deities (Neto et al., 2009; Valencia-Aguilar et al., 2013).  

Knowledge Systems  

Ecosystems influence formal and informal knowledge systems developed by 

communities (MEA, 2005). For example, the ability to identify and harvest food from nature, 

27 

 
 
 
 
and then process, prepare, and consume that food in culturally acceptable ways are important 

aspects of traditional food knowledge (Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996). The retention of traditional 

food knowledge helps maintain traditional food systems (Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996). Among 

the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Wisconsin, techniques for respectfully 

butchering and handling deer meat are passed down inter-generationally within families (Reo & 

Whyte, 2012).  The ethnozoological knowledge tied to wildlife meat is a component of 

traditional medical knowledge in some cultures, and another example of how wildlife meat 

contributes to knowledge systems (Alonso-Castro, 2014). Dietary taboos around wildlife meat 

consumption are also important components of indigenous beliefs and traditional knowledge 

systems (Luzar et al., 2012).  

Wildlife meat not only contributes to knowledge systems, but also facilitates the 

transmission of traditional knowledge. The Torres Straight Islanders of Australia use the sharing 

of wildlife meat to transmit traditional knowledge to islanders raised away from the homeland 

(Watkin Lui et al., 2016). As communities undergo social, economic, and political change, and 

interact with wildlife less (including hunting), some fear that knowledge of traditional food will 

be lost (Alonso-Castro, 2014; Condon et al., 1995). For example, due to protections aimed at 

restricting the harvest of seabirds, the inhabitants of Røst in the Lofoten Islands of northern 

Norway are concerned about losing the traditional knowledge of how to make delicacies out of 

local species (Kaltenborn et al., 2017). 

Sense of Place  

Sense of place is an individual or collective socially constructed attachment to a 

particular environmental setting and is often linked to identity (Urquhart & Acott, 2014). 

Wildlife meat can represent a location or environment, connecting the individuals who consume 

28 

 
 
 
 
it to where the meat was harvested. Torres Straight Islanders share wildlife meat with community 

members living on mainland Australia because it provides a connection to where they are from 

(Watkin Lui et al., 2016). In their study of Inuit life in Northern Quebec, Goombay (2005) states 

that “there is no way of separating the food that I eat from an awareness of the place that it 

comes from” (p. 418). The harvesting of country foods, like wildlife meat, builds an 

understanding of the land, a knowledge of one’s place in the world, and contributes to people’s 

construction of place (Gombay, 2005).  

Recreation and Tourism  

Ecosystem services are also derived from the physical use of ecosystems for recreational 

purposes (Kulczyk et al., 2018). This includes recreation conducted through tourism (MEA, 

2005). Cultural ecosystem services are created through the pursuit and harvest of wildlife meat. 

Hunting is associated with providing physical, psychological, social, and economic benefits 

(Hendee, 1974). Assessing the cultural ecosystem services provided by hunting, however, is 

beyond the scope of this dissertation, as the focus is on wildlife meat and the ecosystem services 

provided once an animal has been killed. Nonetheless, wildlife meat is inextricably linked to its 

acquisition. Wildlife meat is purported to serve as a re-embrace, or totem, of the hunt (M. N. 

Peterson et al., 2010).  

Wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services through tourism. For example, in 

South Africa, tourists often consume wildlife meat because it is considered exotic and local 

(Hoffman et al., 2003). Wildlife meat is a favorite type of meat for German, Belgian, and 

American tourists to order at restaurants in Western Cape, South Africa (Hoffman et al., 2003). 

Nearly 92% of tourists who responded to the survey had eaten wildlife meat at a restaurant or 

hotel (Hoffman et al., 2003). In China, tourists seek local gastronomic experiences through the 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
consumption of local cuisines made with wildlife meat (Ying et al., 2021). In Lin’an, Zhejiang 

province an estimated 16,150 kg of wildlife meat are consumed though tourism (Ying et al., 

2021). 

Disservices Provided by Wildlife Meat 

Disservices are negative effects of the environment on people that can counteract or 

reduce the benefits provided by ecosystems (Power, 2010). Wildlife meat can be a vessel for 

disservices.  Food safety hazards such as allergens, bacteria, chemicals, foreign bodies, fungi, 

heavy metals, hormones, protozoa, parasites, pesticides, prions, radioactive isotopes, toxins, and 

viruses can cause a wide range of negative impacts on humans (Randles et al., 2014). Handling 

and consuming wildlife meat can pose adverse biological, chemical, and physical risks (Randles 

et al., 2014). Biological risks created from bacteria, protozoa, parasites, and viruses can cause 

illness in humans (Vagsholm, 2014). Three quarters of recent zoonoses are thought to have 

originated from wildlife; consuming wildlife as food puts people and wildlife in direct contact, 

increasing the likelihood of disease transmission (Kamins et al., 2014). For example, STEC 

Escherichia coli (Coburn et al., 2005; Ramanzin et al., 2010), Salmonella spp. (Atanassova et al. 

2008; Gill, 2007), and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Randles et al., 2014) are all bacteria found 

in wildlife meat that can cause illness in humans. Toxoplasma gongii (Ross et al., 2001; Vikøren 

et al., 2004) and Trichinella spiralis (CDC, 2013; Nelson et al., 2003) are parasites found in 

wildlife meat that are known to cause illness in humans. Viruses that cause diseases such as 

severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (Bell et al., 2004), Ebola (Alexander et al., 2015), and 

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Volpato et al., 2020) are all believed to have been 

transmitted to humans by handling or consuming wildlife meat.  

Chemical risks can either be present in the environment or introduced by human 

30 

 
 
 
 
activities, like the deposition of pesticides, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), and 

heavy metals into the environment (Burger, 2000; Gremse et al., 2014; Randles et al., 2014). 

PCB’s and dioxins (Kuhnlein & Chan 2000, Warenik-Bany et al., 2016) and lead (Arnemo et al., 

2016; Danieli et al., 2012; Iqbal et al., 2009; Mateo et al., 2007) are found in wildlife meat. Bio-

accumulated chemicals in wildlife meat can be present at levels unsafe for human consumption, 

especially by women who are pregnant or may become pregnant, and by children less than 6 

years old (Danieli et al., 2012; Iqbal et al., 2009; Mateo et al., 2007).  

Physical risks can be as simple as eating a piece of bone or as complex as radioactive 

isotopes in wildlife meat (Randles et al., 2014). Radionuclides from Chernobyl present in the 

environment were identified as potential public health risks accrued from the consumption of 

wildlife in Northern Sweden (Palo et al., 1991). 

Synergies and Tradeoffs 

Wildlife meat can carry many simultaneous meanings (Bryant et al., 2003). For example, 

wildlife meat can simultaneously provide provisional ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem 

services, and disservices (Figure 2.2). A family sitting down for dinner with friends may be 

consuming wildlife meat as food (a provisional ecosystem service); while sharing it with friends 

strengthens social relations (a cultural ecosystem service); however, that wildlife meat may also 

be contaminated with lead (a disservice). When services occur simultaneously, there can be 

interactions between ecosystem services categories known as synergies, bundles, and tradeoffs 

(Mouchet et al., 2014). Wildlife meat is a unique example of a synergistic relationship: it is a 

provisional ecosystem service that provides cultural ecosystem services. The Torres Straight 

Islanders of Australia consume turtle and dugong meat (wildlife meat as a provisional ecosystem 

service in the form of food) and share this meat to maintain relationships and honor elders 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
(wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services in the form of social relations) (Watkin Lui 

et al., 2016). Potential disservices created by handling and consuming wildlife meat force 

tradeoffs with consuming and sharing wildlife meat. Consuming wildlife meat may be an 

important expression of cultural identity, yet if that wildlife meat is contaminated, consumption 

may lead to health issues. This contradiction—that wildlife meat can provide both positive and 

negative benefits simultaneously—complicates management decisions and requires holistic 

systems-based solutions. 

Conclusions 

It is well accepted and documented that wildlife meat is a provisional ecosystem service 

used as food, ornamental resources, and for biochemicals, natural medicines, and 

pharmaceuticals. In this chapter I establish that wildlife meat also provides cultural ecosystem 

services in the form of social relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, spiritual and religious, 

knowledge systems, sense of place, and recreation and tourism. Handling and consuming 

wildlife meat also creates potential disservices in the form of biological, chemical, and physical 

risks. That wildlife meat can provide multiple ecosystem services simultaneously in the form of 

synergies and tradeoffs increases its significance to societies throughout the world.  

Assessments relying solely on the provisional ecosystem services of wildlife meat 

underestimate the total value of wildlife meat to society. Recognizing the co-generation of 

benefits and disservices provided by wildlife meat, as well as the interactions and feedback loops 

between ecosystem services, enables a more complete assessment of the value of wildlife meat to 

society, and the complexities of managing such an interrelated system. Placing ecosystem 

services within a framework of metacoupled human and natural systems (human-nature 

interactions within, as well as between, adjacent and distant places) (Liu 2017) may enable a 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
deeper understanding of how ecosystem services and disservices from one location can have a 

far-reaching effect. For example, wildlife meat consumption in China, driven by nutritional and 

cultural motivations, was a potential vehicle for transmission of SARS-CoV2 to humans, which 

has had devastating effects worldwide.  

Wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services that can add substantial additional 

value, as well as disservices that may reduce its value. Identifying the cultural ecosystem 

services provided by wildlife meat contributes to knowledge about the cultural drivers of 

consumption. When setting forth to mitigate the unsustainable harvest of wildlife, recognizing 

the multiple benefits provided by wildlife meat, and their interconnectedness, increases the 

probability of a more complete assessment. For example, regulations that severely limit the 

amount of wildlife meat harvested may lead to a loss of cultural ecosystem services. Replacing 

wildlife meat with other substitutions may fulfill dietary needs, but not cultural needs. 

Alternatively, systems attempting to increase the consumption of wildlife meat may 

inadvertently promote the spread of disservices. Using the ecosystems services framework 

enables a more comprehensive assessment of the provisional and cultural services provided by 

wildlife meat, as well as the disservices, and a way to assess their synergies and tradeoffs to 

make more holistic and informed decisions about consumptive uses of wildlife.  

33 

 
 
 
 
FIGURES 

Figure 2.1: 

The ecosystem services framework.  

Note. Adapted from MEA, 2005.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.2:  

Identification of and relationships between provisional ecosystem services, cultural ecosystem 
services, and disservices from wildlife meat. 

Note. Wildlife meat is a provisional ecosystem service in the form of food, ornamental resources, 
or biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals. Wildlife meat provides cultural 
ecosystem services in the form of social relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, spiritual 
and religious, knowledge systems, sense of place, and recreation and tourism. Wildlife meat can 
distribute disservices in the form of biological, chemical, and physical risks. As a provisional 
ecosystem service, wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services. The quantity and quality 
of wildlife meat can have positive (increased cultural ecosystem services) or negative (decreased 
cultural ecosystem services) effects. Cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat can 
affect how wildlife meat is used as a provisional ecosystem service in positive ways (increased 
harvest and consumption) or negative ways (decreased harvest and consumption). Disservices 
from wildlife meat can have direct negative effects on wildlife meats use as a provisional 
ecosystem service and thus indirect negative effects on the cultural ecosystem services it 
provides.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.1: 

TABLES 

Ecosystem services and disservices provided by wildlife meat.   

Category 

Food 

Service/Disservice 
Provisional 
Ecosystem 
Services: tangible 
products obtained 
from ecosystems 
(MEA, 2005). 

Definition 
Products harvested 
from ecosystems 
used for human 
consumption (MEA, 
2005). 

Ornamental 
resources 

Biochemicals, 
natural 
medicines, and 
pharmaceuticals 

Products harvested 
from ecosystems 
used for decoration 
or handicrafts 
(MEA, 2005). 
Products such as 
medicines, biocides, 
food additives, and 
other biological 
materials that are 
derived from 
ecosystems (MEA, 
2005). 

Evidence of wildlife meat providing this service/disservice 

4.9 million tons of wildlife meat are harvested in Afrotropical 
forests annually, which supply food to millions of people (Fa et al., 
2002).  
Rural and indigenous communities living in the Amazon are 
estimated to extract at least 67,000 tons of wildlife meat annually 
(Valencia-Aguilar et al., 2013). 
In Germany, 0.9 kg per person per year of wildlife meat is estimated 
to be consumed from an estimated 40,000 metric ton annual harvest 
(Atanassova et al., 2008). 
Seal skins, narwhal ivory, and muskox wool are all animal parts 
used as ornamental resources in the Canadian Artic (Condon et al., 
1995). 
Skins of lizards, crocodilians, and snakes are popular worldwide for 
leather goods (Chardonnet et al., 2002). 
The Koya and Guthikoya tribes of the Warangal district of Andhra 
Pradesh, India believe the meat of the Indian jackal and Rhesus 
macaque cure asthma and other ailments (Benarjee et al., 2010). 
The non-indigenous inhabitants of the Argentine Chaco use fat from 
tegu lizards for ailments such as cuts, snakebites, and colds, and fat 
from pumas and boas for contusions and muscular pain (Altrichter, 
2006). 

Cultural 
Ecosystem 
Services: non-
material benefits 

Social Relations  Ecosystems provide 

opportunities for 
creating and 
enhancing 

Among Holman Inuit of Canada, the sharing of subsistence foods, 
including wildlife meat, is important for community integration, 
kinship and friendship ties, and denoting respect between hunting 
households (Condon et al., 1995). 

36 

Table 2.1 (cont’d) 
obtained from 
ecosystems (MEA, 
2005). 

Cultural 
identity 

Cultural 
heritage 

The Torres Straight Islanders of Australia share wildlife meat, turtle 
and dugong meat in particular, to maintain relationships and honor 
elders (Watkin Lui et al., 2016). 
The sharing of country foods (including wildlife meat) by Inuit of 
the Canadian Artic generates social capital within the community 
(Gombay, 2005). 
Food sharing is part of Inuit ideology; Holman Inuit who did not 
participate in substance food sharing reported feeling more 
separated from their cultural identity (Condon et al., 1995).  
A study of factors affecting wildlife meat consumption in Bata, 
Equatorial Guinea found that nationality and ethnicity predicted 
meat consumption, quantifying the connection between identity and 
wildlife meat consumption (East et al., 2005). 
First and second-generation African expatriates living in New York 
and Atlanta reported that eating wildlife meat was a way to share 
their culture with friends and family (Bair-Brake et al., 2014). 
Subsistence hunting and consumption of wildlife meat are a 
tradition in the Canadian Arctic; these traditional activities maintain 
continuity with the past (Condon et al., 1995). 

For Torres Straight Islanders in Australia, sharing wildlife meat 
provides a way to explain and transmit culture to younger 
generations, connecting youth to their cultural heritage (Watkin Lui 
et al., 2016). 

relationships and 
strengthen 
communities 
(Calvet-Mir et al., 
2012). 

The formation or 
thickening of 
cultural identity can 
be tied to an 
ecosystem or its 
components (Chan et 
al., 2012). 

Legacy of 
biophysical features, 
physical artifacts, 
and intangible 
attributes (related to 
the natural world) of 
a group or society 
that are inherited 
from past 
generations, 
maintained in the 
present, and 
bestowed for the 
benefit of future 
generations (Daniel 
et al., 2012.) 

37 

 
 
 
Table 2.1 (cont’d) 

Spiritual and 
religious 

Knowledge 
systems 

Sense of place 

Recreation and 
tourism 

Attach spiritual and 
religious values to 
ecosystems and their 
components (MEA, 
2005) and 
ecosystems are a 
source of inspiration 
for religious or 
spiritual thought and 
experience (Chan et 
al., 2012). 
Ecosystems 
influence the types 
of knowledge 
systems developed 
(traditional and 
formal) (MEA, 
2005). 

An individual or 
collective socially 
constructed 
attachment to a 
particular 
environmental 
setting and often 
linked to identity 
(Urquhart & Acott, 
2014). 
Ecosystem services 
are derived from the 
physical use of 

Inuit believe that wildlife possess an immortal spirit and that 
sharing and consuming wildlife meat helps the spirit separate from 
the animal body and take a new form, continuing the cycle of life 
(Omura, 2013) 
The Yakama of the Pacific Northwest use wildlife as a ceremonial 
meat during tribal funerals, memorials, name-giving ceremonies, 
weddings, and other celebrations (McCorquodale, 1997). 
Wildlife meat and other animal parts are used in rural Nigeria for 
cultural and religious ceremonies, such as masquerades, death 
ceremonies, and the installation of traditional rulers (Adeola, 1992). 

Among the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in 
Wisconsin, techniques for respectfully butchering and handling deer 
meat are passed down inter-generationally within families (Reo & 
Whyte, 2012) 
Due to protections aimed at restricting the harvest of seabirds, 
inhabitants of Røst in the Lofoten Islands of northern Norway are 
concerned about losing the traditional knowledge of how to make 
delicacies out of local species (Kaltenborn et al., 2017). 
Torres Straight Islanders share wildlife meat with community 
members living on mainland Australia because it provides a link to 
the homeland and a connection to where they are from (Watkin Lui 
et al., 2016). 
For Inuit of Northern Quebec the harvesting of country foods, 
including wildlife meat, builds an understanding of the land, a 
knowledge of one’s place in the world, and contributes to people’s 
construction of place (Gombay, 2005) 

Wildlife meat was reported as a favorite type of meat among 
German, Belgian, and American tourists to order at restaurants in 
Western Cape South Africa, nearly 92% of whom reported 

38 

 
 
 
Table 2.1 (cont’d) 

Disservices: 
negative effects of 
the environment 
on people that can 
counteract or 
reduce the benefits 
provided by 
ecosystems 
(Power, 2010). 

Biological 

Chemical 

Physical 

consuming wildlife meat (Hoffman et al., 2003). 

ecosystems for 
recreational purposes 
(Kulczyk et al., 
2018), this also 
includes recreation 
conducted thought 
tourism (MEA, 
2005). 
Biological risks 
created from 
bacteria, protozoa, 
parasites, and viruses 
can cause illness in 
humans (Vagsholm, 
2014). 

STEC Escherichia coli (Coburn et al., 2005; Ramanzin et al., 2010), 
Salmonella spp. (Atanassova et al. 2008; Gill, 2007), and 
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Randles et al., 2014) are all bacteria 
found in wildlife meat that can cause illness in humans. 
Viruses that cause diseases such as severe acute respiratory 
syndrome (SARS) (Bell et al., 2004), Ebola (Alexander et al., 
2015), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Volpato et al., 
2020) are all believed to have been transmitted to humans by 
handling or consuming wildlife meat. 
PCB’s and dioxins (Kuhnlein & Chan 2000, Warenik-Bany et al., 
2016) and lead (Arnemo et al., 2016; Danieli et al., 2012; Iqbal et 
al., 2009; Mateo et al., 2007) are found in wildlife meat. 

Chemical risks can 
be present either in 
the environment or 
introduced by human 
activities, such as the 
depositing of 
pesticides, dioxins, 
polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCB’s), 
and heavy metals 
into the environment 
(Burger, 2000; 
Gremse et al., 2014; 
Randles et al., 2014). 
Physical risks can be  Radionuclides present in the environment from Chernobyl were 

39 

 
 
 
Table 2.1 (cont’d) 

identified as potential public health risks accrued from the 
consumption of wildlife in Northern Sweden (Palo et al., 1991). 

as simple as eating a 
piece of bone, but 
also more complex 
such as radioactive 
isotopes in wildlife 
meat (Randles et al., 
2014). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Adeola, M. O. (1992). Importance of wild animals and their parts in the culture, religious 

festivals, and traditional medicine, of Nigeria. Environmental Conservation, 19(2), 125–
134. 

 Aiyadurai, A., Singh, N. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). Wildlife hunting by indigenous 
tribes: a case study from Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Oryx, 44(4), 564–572. 

Alexander, K. A., Sanderson, C. E., Marathe, M., Lewis, B. L., Rivers, C. M., Shaman, J., Drake, 
J. M., Lofgren, E., Dato, V. M., Eisenberg, M. C. & Eubank, S. (2015). What factors 
might have led to the emergence of Ebola in West Africa? PLoS neglected tropical 
diseases, 9(6). 

 Alonso-Castro, A. J. (2014). Use of medicinal fauna in Mexican traditional medicine. Journal of 

Ethnopharmacology, 152(1), 53–70. 

Altrichter, M. (2006). Wildlife in the life of local people of the semi-arid Argentine Chaco. 

Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(8), 2719–2736.  

Arnemo, J. M., Andersen, O., Stokke, S., Thomas, V. G., Krone, O., Pain, D. J., & Mateo, R. 
(2016). Health and environmental risks from lead-based ammunition: Science versus 
socio-politics. EcoHealth, 13(4), 618–622. 

Atanassova, V., Apelt, J., Reich, F., & Klein, G. (2008). Microbiological quality of freshly shot 

game in Germany. Meat science, 78(4), 414–419. 

Bell, D., Roberton, S., & Hunter, P. R. (2004). Animal origins of SARS coronavirus: Possible 
links with the international trade in small carnivores. Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1447), 1107–1114. 

Benarjee, G., Srikanth, K., Ramu, G., & Ramulu, K. N. (2010). Ethnozoological study in a 

tropical wildlife sanctuary of Eturunagaram in the Warangal district, Andhra Pradesh. 
Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 9(4), 701–704. 

Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among 

multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1394–1404. 

Binder, C., Hinkel, J., Bots, P., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for 
analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 1–19. 

Bleier, N., Biró, Z., Galló, J., Szemethy, L., & Csányi, S. (2013, October). Trend in game meat 
production and consumption in Hungary over the period 1970-2012. Modern aspects of 
sustainable management of game populations. Symposium conducted at the 2nd 
International Symposium on Hunting, Novi Sad, Serbia.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Brashares, J. S., Golden, C. D., Weinbaum, K. Z., Barrett, C. B., & Okello, G. V. (2011). 

Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13931–13936. 

Bair‐Brake, H., Bell, T., Higgins, A., Bailey, N., Duda, M., Shapiro, S., Eves, H. E., Marano, N. 

& Galland, G. (2014). Is that a rodent in your luggage? A mixed method approach to 
describe bushmeat importation into the United States. Zoonoses and Public Health, 61(2), 
97–104. 

Bryant, C. A., DeWalt, K. M., Courtney, A., & Schwarts, J. (2003). The cultural feast: An 

introduction to food and society (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Bureš, D., Bartoň, L., Kotrba, R., & Hakl, J. (2015). Quality attributes and composition of meat 

from red deer (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama dama) and Aberdeen Angus and 
Holstein cattle (Bos taurus). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(11), 
2299–2306. 

Burger, J. (2000). Gender differences in meal patterns: Role of self-caught fish and wild game in 

meat and fish diets. Environmental Research Section A, 83, 140–149.  

Burger, J. (2002). Daily consumption of wild fish and game: Exposures of high end 

recreationalists. International journal of Environmental Health Research, 12, 343–354.  

Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Reyes-García, V. (2012). Beyond food production: 

Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan 
Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics, 74, 153–160. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2013) The BFRSS data user guide. Atlanta, 

Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention. 

Cerulli, T. (2012). The mindful carnivore: A vegetarian's hunt for sustenance. New York, NY: 

Pegasus Books.  

Chan, K. M., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., 
Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B. S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., 
Ruckelshaus, M., Russsell, R., Tam, J., & Woodside, U. (2012). Where are cultural and 
social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive 
engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756. 

Chardonnet, P., Clers, B. D., Fischer, J., Gerhold, R., Jori, F., & Lamarque, F. (2002). The value 

of wildlife. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 21(1), 
15–52. 

Coburn, H. L., Snary, E. L., Kelly, L. A. & Wooldridge, M. (2005). Qualitative risk assessment 
of the hazards and risks from wild game. Veterinary Record, 157(11), 321–322. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Condon, R. G., Collings, P., & Wenzel, G. (1995). The best part of life: Subsistence hunting, 

ethnicity, and economic adaptation among young adult Inuit males. Arctic, 48(1), 31–46. 

Cord, A. F., Bartkowski, B., Beckmann, M., Dittrich, A., Hermans-Neumann, K., Kaim, A., 

Leinhoop, N., Locher-Krause, K., Priess, J., Schroter-Schlaack, C., Schwarz, N., Seppelt, 
R., Strauch, M., Václavík, T., & Volk, M. (2017). Towards systematic analyses of 
ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road 
ahead. Ecosystem Services, 28, 264–272. 

Cordain, L., Watkins, B. A., Florant, G. L., Kelher, M., Rogers, L., & Li, Y. (2002). Fatty acid 

analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related 
chronic disease. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 56(3), 181. 

Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & 

Grasso, M.  (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how 
far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1–16. 

Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., Costanza, R., 

Elmqvist, T., Flint, C. G., Gobster, P. H.,Grêt-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, 
M., Ribe, R. G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T.,  Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., 
Taczanowska, K., Tam, J., & von der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services 
to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819. 

Danieli, P. P., Serrani, F., Primi, R., Ponzetta, M. P., Ronchi, B., & Amici, A. (2012). Cadmium, 
lead, and chromium in large game: A local-scale exposure assessment for hunters 
consuming meat and liver of wild boar. Archives of environmental contamination and 
toxicology, 63(4), 612–627. 

Díaz, S. M., Settele, J., Brondízio, E., Ngo, H., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., 
Brauman, K. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Chan, K. M. A., Garibaldi, L. A. ., Ichii, K., Liu, J., 
Subramanian, S. M., Midgley, G. F., Miloslavich, P., Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., 
Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Roy Chowdhury, R.,  Shin, Y. J., 
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Willis, K. J., & Zayas, C. N. (Eds.). (2019). The global 
assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Summary for policy makers. 
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 

Dombrowski, K. (2007). Subsistence livelihood, native identity and internal differentiation in 

Southeast Alaska. Anthropologica, 49(2), 211–229. 

East, T., Kümpel, N. F., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2005). Determinants of urban 
bushmeat consumption in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. Biological Conservation, 126(2), 
206–215. 

Ellis, R. (2013). Tiger bone & rhino horn: The destruction of wildlife for traditional Chinese 

medicine. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

43 

 
 
 
 
Fa, J. E., Peres, C. A., & Meeuwig, J. (2002). Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: An 

intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 232–237. 

Fergus, J. (1996, June). Guess who’s coming to dinner: Should you invite an anti-hunter to share 

a meal with you? Outdoor Life, 197(6), 22–23.  

Fischer, A., Sandström, C., Delibes-Mateos, M., Arroyo, B., Tadie, D., Randall, D., Hailu, F., 
Lowassa, A., Msuha, M., Kereži, V., Reljić, S., Linnell, J., & Majić, A. (2013). On the 
multifunctionality of hunting–an institutional analysis of eight cases from Europe and 
Africa. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(4), 531–552. 

Fischler, C. (1988). Food, self and identity. Social Science Information, 27(2), 275–292. 

Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualizing cultural ecosystem services: A novel 
framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217. 

Fletcher, J. (2011). Gardens of Earthly Delight: The history of deer parks. Oxford, UK: 

Windgather Press. 

Food Law, Act 92 (2000). Michigan. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-act-92-of-2000. 

Gee, K., & Burkhard, B. (2010). Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind 
farming: A case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological 
Complexity, 7(3), 349–358. 

Geist, V. (1988). How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, 

jeopardize wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 2(1), 15–26.  

Gill, C. O. (2007). Microbiological conditions of meats from large game animals and birds. Meat 

Science, 77(2), 149–160. 

Goguen, A. D. & Riley, S. J. (2020). Consumption of Wild-Harvested Meat in Society. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, 44(3), 553–563.   

Goguen, A. D., Riley, S. J., Organ, J. F., & Rudolph, B. A. (2018). Wild-harvested venison 

yields and sharing by Michigan deer hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(3), 197–
212. 

Gombay, N. (2005). Shifting identities in a shifting world: Food, place, community, and the 

politics of scale in an Inuit settlement. Environment and Planning D: Society and 
Space, 23(3), 415–433. 

Gremse, C., Rieger, S., Lahrssen-Wiederholt, M., Ball, J. P., & Gremse, F. (2014). Risk analysis 

of game meat-borne hazards induced by hunting rifle bullets: Intermediate report on 
German field studies. In P. Paulsen, A. Bauer, and F.J.M. Smulders (Eds.), Trends in 
game meat hygiene: From forest to fork (pp. 353–362). Wageningen Academic 

44 

 
 
 
 
Publishers. 

Heffelfinger, J. (2014, Nov/Dec), The Gift of Venison. Tracks, 42–46.  

Hendee, J. C. (1974). A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, 2(3), 104–113. 

Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural 

ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. 

Hoffman, L. C. (2008). The yield and nutritional value of meat from African ungulates, 

camelidae, rodents, ratites and reptiles. Meat Science, 80(1), 94–100. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Cawthorn, D. M. (2012). What is the role and contribution of meat from 

wildlife in providing high quality protein for consumption? Animal Frontiers, 2(4), 40–
53. 

Hoffman, L. C., Crafford, K., Muller, N., & Schutte, D. W. (2003). Perceptions and consumption 
of game meat by a group of tourists visiting South Africa. South African Journal of 
Wildlife Research, 33(2), 125–130. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006). Game and venison–meat for the modern consumer. Meat 

Science, 74(1), 197–208. 

Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs? 

Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-
offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change, 28, 263–275. 

Iqbal, S., Blumenthal, W., Kennedy, C., Yip, F. Y., Pickard, S., Flanders, W. D., Loringer, K., 

Kruger, K., Caldwell, K. J., & Brown, M. J. (2009). Hunting with lead: Association 
between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. Environmental Research, 109(8), 
952–959. 

Joanen, T., McNease, L., Elsey, R. M., & Staton, M. A. (1997). The commercial consumptive 

use of the American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) in Louisiana: Its effects on 
conservation. In Freese, C. H. (Ed). Harvesting wild species: Implications for biodiversity 
conservation (pp. 465–506). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.  

Kaltenborn, B. P., Linnell, J. D., Baggethun, E. G., Lindhjem, H., Thomassen, J., & Chan, K. M. 

(2017). Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A 
case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological 
Economics, 140, 166–176. 

Kamins, A., Baker, K., Restif, O., Cunningham, A., & Wood, J. L. N. (2014). Emerging risks 

from bat bushmeat in West Africa. In P. Paulsen, A. Bauer, and F.J.M. Smulders (Eds.), 
Trends in game meat hygiene: From forest to fork (pp. 353–362).: Wageningen 

45 

 
 
 
 
Academic Publishers. 

Klemens, M. W., & Thorbjarnarson, J. B. (1995). Reptiles as a food resource. Biodiversity & 

Conservation, 4(3), 281–298. 

Kuhnlein, H. V., & Chan, H. M. (2000). Environment and contaminants in traditional food 
systems of northern indigenous peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition, 20, 595–626. 

Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (1996). Dietary change and traditional food systems of 

indigenous peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition, 16(1), 417–442. 

Kulczyk, S., Woźniak, E., & Derek, M. (2018). Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated 

model of recreational ecosystem services. Ecosystem services, 31, 491–501. 

Larsen, C. S. (2003). Animal source foods and human health during evolution. The Journal of 

Nutrition, 133(11), 3893S-3897S.  

Lee, H., & Lautenbach, S. (2016). A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem 

services. Ecological Indicators, 66, 340–351. 

León, P., & Montiel, S. (2008). Wild meat use and traditional hunting practices in a rural Mayan 
community of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Human Ecology, 36(2), 249–257. 

Liu, J. (2017). Integration across a metacoupled world. Ecology and Society, 22(4). 

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., Heberlein, T. A., & Ericsson, G. (2012). Eat prey and love: Game‐meat 

consumption and attitudes toward hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 36(4), 669–675. 

Luzar, J. B., Silvius, K. M., & Fragoso, J. M. (2012). Church affiliation and meat taboos in 
indigenous communities of Guyanese Amazonia. Human Ecology, 40(6), 833–845. 

Maher, S. M., Barker, K. J., Kroetz, K., Butsic, V., Leonard, B., & Middleton, A. D. (2023). 

Assessing the ecosystem services and disservices provided by migratory wildlife across 
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Biological Conservation, 283, 110090. 

Mainka, S. A., & Mills, J. A. (1995). Wildlife and traditional Chinese medicine: Supply and 
demand for wildlife species. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 26(2), 193–200. 

Marchello, M. J., Berg, P. T., Slanger, W. D., & Harrold, R. L. (1985). Cutability and nutrient 

content of white-tailed deer. Journal of Food Quality, 7(4), 267–275.  

Mateo, R., Rodriguez-De La Cruz, M., Vidal, D., Reglero, M., & Camarero, P. (2007). Transfer 

of lead from shot pellets to game meat during cooking. Science of the Total 
Environment, 372(2-3), 480–485. 

McCorquodale, S. M. (1997). Cultural contexts of recreational hunting and native subsistence 

46 

 
 
 
 
and ceremonial hunting: Their significance for wildlife management. Wildlife Society 
Bulletin, 25(2), 568–573. 

Milcu, A., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A 

literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 1–34. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Current 

state and trends (Vol.1). Island Press.   

Mills, J., & Servheen, C. (1994). The Asian trade in bears and bear parts: Impacts and 

conservation recommendations. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 9(1), 161-167. 

Mintz, S. W., & Du Bois, C. M. (2002). The anthropology of food and eating. Annual Review of 

Anthropology, 31(1), 99–119. 

Mouchet, M. A., Lamarque, P., Martín-López, B., Crouzat, E., Gos, P., Byczek, C., & Lavorel, 
S. (2014). An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations 
between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 28, 298–308. 

Murcott, A. (1982). The cultural significance of food and eating. Proceedings of the Nutrition 

Society, 41(2), 203–210. 

Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G., & Christophersen, T. 

(2008). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: The bushmeat crisis 
(Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 33).  

National Shooting Sports Foundation. (2011). American attitudes toward hunting, fishing, and 

target shooting 2011. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Newton, Connecticut, USA. 

Nelson, M., Wright, T. L., Pierce, A., & Krogwold, R. A. (2003). A common-source outbreak to 
trichinosis from consumption of bear meat. Journal of Environmental Health, 65(9), 16–
19. 

Neto, N. A. L., Brooks, S. E., & Alves, R. R. (2009). From Eshu to Obatala: Animals used in 

sacrificial rituals at Candomblé" terreiros" in Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and 
Ethnomedicine, 5, 1–10. 

Ngade, I. N. M., Singer, M., Marcus, O., & Hasemann, J. (2017). Implications of changing 

attitudes towards game meat consumption at the time of Ebola in Limbe, 
Cameroon. Human Organization, 76(1), 48–58. 

Norman, D. R. (1987). Man and tegu lizards in eastern Paraguay. Biological 

Conservation, 41(1), 39–56. 

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. 1997. Wildlife and food security in Africa. FAO Conservation Guide 33. 

FAO, Rome, Italy 

47 

 
 
 
 
Nuttall, M. (1991). Sharing and the ideology of subsistence in a Greenlandic sealing 

community. Polar Record, 27(162), 217-222. 

Omura, K. (2013) The ontology of sociality: Sharing: and subsistence mechanisms. In Kawai, K. 
(Ed.). Groups: the evolution of human sociality. Kyoto University Press & Trans Pacific 
Press. 

Palo, R. T., Nelin, P., Nylen, T., & Wickman, G. (1991). Radiocesium levels in Swedish moose 

in relation to deposition, diet, and age. Journal of Environmental Quality, 20(3), 690–
695. 

Patton, J. Q. (2005). Meat sharing for coalitional support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 

137–157. 

Peterson, M. J., Hall, D. M., Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Obscuring 
ecosystem function with application of the ecosystem services concept. Conservation 
Biology, 24(1), 113–119. 

Peterson, M. N., Hansen, H. P., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). How hunting 

strengthens social awareness of coupled human-natural systems. Wildlife Biology 
Practicum, 6(2), 127–143.  

Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Byg, A., Hartel, T., Hurley, P., López-Santiago, C., 

Nagabhatla, N., Oteros-Rozas, E., Raymond, C., van der Horst, D., & Huntsinger, L. 
(2015). The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and 
planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 28-33. 

Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and 

quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–
129. 

Polak, T., Rajar, A., Gašperlin, L., & Žlender, B. (2008). Cholesterol concentration and fatty acid 

profile of red deer (Cervus elaphus) meat. Meat Science, 80(3), 864–869. 

Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical 

Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365(1554), 2959–2971. 

Pröpper, M., & Haupts, F. (2014). The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process 

and transformation. Ecological Economics, 108, 28–35. 

Quandt, S. A., Arcury, T. A., Bell, R. A., McDonald, J., & Vitolins, M. Z. (2001). The social and 

nutritional meaning of food sharing among older rural adults. Journal of Aging Studies, 
15(2), 145–162. 

Radder, L., & Grunert, K. G. (2009). Consumers’ perceptions of African wildlife meat: A 

laddering study. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15(2), 164–174. 

48 

 
 
 
 
Radder, L., & Le Roux, R. (2005). Factors affecting food choice in relation to venison: A South 

African example. Meat Science, 71(3), 583–589. 

Ramanzin, M., Amici, A., Casoli, C., Esposito, L., Lupi, P., Marsico, G., Mattiello, S., Olovoeri, 

O., Ponzetta, M. P., Russo, C., & Marinucci, M. T. (2010). Meat from wild ungulates: 
Ensuring quality and hygiene of an increasing resource. Italian Journal of Animal 
Science, 9(3), 318–331. 

Randles, P., Seguino, A. & Radakovic, M. (2014) The identification of future risks to the safety 

of foods with emphasis on game meat. In P. Paulsen, A. Bauer & F. J. M. Smulders 
(Eds.), Trends in game meat hygiene: From forest to fork (pp. 59–76). Wageningen 
Academic Publishers.  

Reo, N. J., & Whyte, K. P. (2012). Hunting and morality as elements of traditional ecological 

knowledge. Human Ecology, 40(1), 15–27. 

Richardson, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services and food security: Economic perspectives on 

environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 2(11), 3520–3548. 

Robards, M. D., & Reeves, R. R. (2011). The global extent and character of marine mammal 
consumption by humans: 1970–2009. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 2770–2786. 

Ross, R. D., Stec, L. A., Werner, J. C., Blumenkranz, M. S., Glazer, L., & Williams, G. A. 

(2001). Presumed acquired ocular toxoplasmosis in deer hunters. Retina, 21(3), 226–229. 

Saadoun, A., & Cabrera, M. C. (2008). A review of the nutritional content and technological 

parameters of indigenous sources of meat in South America. Meat Science, 80(3), 570–
581. 

Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., 

Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain., S. (2013). The challenges 
of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental 
assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. 

Searles, E. (2002). Food and the making of modern Inuit identities. Food and Foodways, 10(1-

2), 55–78. 

Searles, E. (2016). To sell or not to sell: Country food markets and Inuit identity in 

Nunavut. Food and Foodways, 24(3-4), 194–212. 

Scholte, S. S., van Teeffelen, A. J., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural 
perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and 
methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67–78. 

Smil, V. (2002). Eating meat: Evolution, patterns, and consequences. Population and 

Development Review, 28(4), 599–639.  

49 

 
 
 
 
Smith, J. B., Tuberville, T, D., & Beasley J. C. (2018). Hunting and game consumption patterns 
of hunters in South Carolina. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, 9(1), 321–329. 

Souto, W. M. S., Barboza, R. R. D., Fernandes-Ferreira, H., Júnior, A. J. C. M., Monteiro, J. M., 
de Araújo Abi-chacra, É., & Alves, R. R. N. (2018). Zootherapeutic uses of wildmeat and 
associated products in the semiarid region of Brazil: General aspects and challenges for 
conservation. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 14(1), 60. 

Stålhammar, S., & Pedersen, E. (2017). Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people 

describe the value? Ecosystem Services, 26, 1–9. 

Stanford, C. B., & Bunn, H. T. (Eds.). (2001). Meat-eating and human evolution. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.  

Still, J. (2003). Use of animal products in traditional Chinese medicine: Environmental impact 

and health hazards. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 11(2), 118–122. 

Strazdiņa, V., Jemeļjanovs, A., & Šterna, V. (2013). Nutrition value of wild animal meat. 

Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, 67(4-5), 373–377.  

Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. (2012). 

Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and 
identity. Ecosystem Services, 2, 14–26. 

Tidball, K. G., Tidball, M. M., & Curtis, P. (2013). Extending the locavore movement to wild 

fish and game: Questions and implications. Natural Sciences Education, 42(1), 185–189. 

Tidball, M. M., Tidball, K. G., & Curtis, P. (2014). The absence of wild game and fish species 
from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference: Addressing 
information gaps in wild caught foods. Ecology of food and nutrition, 53(2), 142-148. 

Titus, K., Haynes, T. L., & Paragi, T. F. (2009). The importance of moose, caribou, deer, and 

small game in the diet of Alaskans. In Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: 
Implications for Wildlife and Humans. Boise, ID: The Peregrine Fund.  

United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). USDA Food Composition Databases [Online 

Searchable Database]. Available at https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/ 

Urquhart, J., & Acott, T. (2014). A sense of place in cultural ecosystem services: The case of 

Cornish fishing communities. Society & Natural Resources, 27(1), 3–19. 

Vagsholm, I. (2014). Public health issues related to zoonoses in wildlife and farmed game. In P. 

Paulsen, A. Bauer, and F.J.M. Smulders (Eds.), Trends in game meat hygiene: From 
forest to fork (pp. 353–362). Wageningen, NL: Wageningen Academic Publishers. 

Valencia-Aguilar, A., Cortés-Gómez, A. M., & Ruiz-Agudelo, C. A. (2013). Ecosystem services 

50 

 
 
 
 
provided by amphibians and reptiles in Neotropical ecosystems. International Journal of 
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9(3), 257–272. 

Van Vliet, N., Cornelis, D., Beck, H., Lindsey, P., Nasi, R., LeBel, S., Moreno, J., Fragoso, J., & 
Jori, F. (2016). Meat from the wild: Extractive uses of wildlife and alternatives for 
sustainability. In R. Mateo, B. Arroyo, & Garcia, J. T. (Eds), Current Trends in Wildlife 
Research (pp. 225–265). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing. 

Van Vliet, N., & Mbazza, P. (2011). Recognizing the multiple reasons for bushmeat 

consumption in urban areas: A necessary step toward the sustainable use of wildlife for 
food in Central Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(1), 45–54. 

Van Vliet, N., & Nasi, R. (2008). Hunting for livelihood in northeast Gabon: Patterns, evolution, 

and sustainability. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 1–18. 

Vikøren, T., Tharaldsen, J., Fredriksen, B., & Handeland, K. (2004). Prevalence of Toxoplasma 

gondii antibodies in wild red deer, roe deer, moose, and reindeer from 
Norway. Veterinary Parasitology, 120(3), 159–169. 

Volpato, G., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Gruppuso, P., Zocchi, D. M., & Pieroni, A. (2020). Baby 

pangolins on my plate: Possible lessons to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal 
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16(19), 1–12.  

Warenik-Bany, M., Strucinski, P., & Piskorska-Pliszczynska, J. (2016). Dioxins and PCBs in 
game animals: Interspecies comparison and related consumer exposure. Environment 
International, 89-90, 21–29. 

Watkin Lui, F., Stoeckl, N., Delisle, A., Kiatkoski Kim, M., & Marsh, H. (2016). Motivations for 
sharing bushmeat with an urban diaspora in Indigenous Australia. Human Dimensions of 
Wildlife, 21(4), 345–360. 

Wiklund, E., & Malmfors, G. (2014). Game meat as a resource in Sweden-with particular focus 

on moose (Alces alces). In P. Paulsen, A. Bauer, M. & F. J. M. Smulders (Eds.), Game 
meat hygiene in focus: From forest to fork (pp. 305–320). Wageningen Academic 
Publishers. 

Ying, T., Wang, K., Liu, X., Wen, J., & Goh, E. (2021). Rethinking game consumption in 

tourism: A case of the 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia outbreak in China. Tourism 
Recreation Research, 46(2), 304-309. 

Zhang, L., Hua, N., & Sun, S. (2008). Wildlife trade, consumption and conservation awareness 

in southwest China. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(6), 1493–1516. 

Zomborszky, Z., Szentmihalyi, G., Sarudi, I., Horn, P., & Szabo, C. S. (1996). Nutrient 

composition of muscles in deer and boar. Journal of Food Science, 61(3), 625–627.

51 

 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3: CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY VENISON IN 
MICHIGAN, USA 

Abstract 

By identifying the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat, this chapter 

assesses our knowledge, reveals gaps in that knowledge, and deepens our understanding of how 

culture and wildlife are linked through wildlife meat. Wildlife meat is the meat (muscle, viscera, 

bones, and associated body tissues used for human consumption) of free-ranging mammals, 

birds, reptiles, and amphibians that are not cultivated, domesticated, or tamed. Although culture 

is recognized as a major factor influencing the harvest and consumption of wildlife meat, 

research on the relationship between culture and the consumption of wildlife is lacking, 

particularly for license purchasing hunters in the United States. Additionally, research on 

synergies between provisional and cultural ecosystem services, and the co-occurrence of cultural 

ecosystem services is limited. To improve our understanding of these complex topics, I 

conducted 60 in-depth, in-person interviews with hunters who purchased a state hunting license 

for deer in southcentral Michigan. Hunters where asked about their venison associated behaviors. 

Provisional, attribute, in vivo, and descriptive coding of these interview transcripts revealed that 

wildlife meat provides hunters with cultural ecosystem services in the form of social relations, 

identity, cultural heritage, education, knowledge systems, and spiritual and religious. Results 

from my study can inform policy and management decisions through additional insights into 

how culture and wildlife meat consumption are linked and how changes in consumption can 

influence the benefits derived from wildlife meat and hunting.  

Wildlife Meat 

People throughout the world harvest wildlife for economic, cultural, ecological, and 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
nutritional reasons (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012; Mainka & Trivedi, 2002). Wildlife meat, also 

called game meat, bushmeat, wild-harvested meat, or wild meat, refers to the meat (muscle, 

viscera, skeleton, and associated body tissues that are used for human consumption) of free-

ranging mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians that are not cultivated, domesticated, or tamed 

(Food Law, 2000; Nasi et al., 2008; Stanford & Bunn, 2001). I use the term wildlife meat 

because it clearly identifies the source (wildlife) while remaining a relatively broad and inclusive 

term. Defining what constitutes wildlife meat, however, is increasingly difficult as the 

definitional line between domestic and wild is blurred with the advent of wildlife farming, 

creation of sanctuaries for hunting, feeding of wildlife for viewing or as a management practice, 

and nomadic herding of wildlife (Geist, 1988; Needham et al, 2023).   

Wildlife meat is gaining popularity with consumers because it is perceived as healthy, 

ethical, and environmentally friendly (Corradini et al., 2022; Needham et al., 2023). Wildlife 

meat is a culturally important and healthy source of lean protein, high in energy content and 

essential macronutrients (Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006). The harvest of wildlife meat is perceived 

as more ethical than factory farming (Kempen et al., 2023) and wildlife meat has lower 

emissions than industrialized meat (Fiala et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2021). However, in some 

areas of the world, harvesting wildlife for consumption is blamed for declines in wildlife 

populations (VanVliet & Mbazza, 2011; Wilkie & Carpenter, 1999). Handling and consuming 

wildlife meat also poses potential public health risks (Paulsen et al., 2014; van Vilet et al., 2022; 

Wegner et al., 2022). For example, the transmission of SARS-CoV2 to humans, which has had 

devastating effects worldwide, is hypothesized to have occurred through wildlife meat 

consumption in China (Volpato et al., 2020).  

In some regions of the world, wildlife meat is understudied and undervalued, creating 

53 

 
 
gaps in knowledge about its use and value to society. Although research on wildlife meat has 

recently been increasing (Corradini et al., 2022), current research on wildlife meat emphasizes its 

nutritional and economic importance (Brashares et al., 2011; Gomez et al., 2022; Nasi et al., 

2008; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011). Culture influences the consumption of wildlife meat 

(Chausson et al, 2019; Mainka & Trivedi, 2002; Nasi et al., 2011; Bennet & Robinson, 2000; 

Schenck et al., 2006; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011), yet research on the relationship between 

culture and wildlife consumption is lacking (Chausson et al, 2019; Nasi et al., 2011; Morsello et 

al., 2015). However, there is a growing interest in understanding the cultural importance of 

wildlife meat (Ahmed et al., 2022; Goguen & Riley, 2020; Gomez et al., 2022; Van Vliet & 

Mbazza, 2011; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Furthermore, most research on wildlife meat is from 

subsistence or indigenous communities, or relates to bushmeat from the tropics (Alvard et al., 

1997; Davies & Brown, 2007; Gurven, 2004). There is little research on wildlife meat, 

particularly its cultural importance, in other contexts. Understanding the cultural importance of 

wildlife meat has implications for public health policy and wildlife management decisions, as 

culture affects both the consumption of and benefits derived from wildlife meat.  

An estimated 263 million kg of wildlife meat are harvested annually by hunters in the 

United States (Johnson et al., 2021), yet wildlife meat remains an overlooked component of US 

food systems (Hall et al., 2020; Tidball et al., 2014). Research on hunting in the United States 

tends to focus on the economic value of hunting or managing wildlife populations, rather than 

the wildlife meat that hunting provides, creating gaps in our knowledge about a significant aspect 

of hunting (Maher et al., 2023; Marchello et al, 1985). Although research on the use and 

distribution of hunter-harvested wildlife meat in the United States is limited, even less is known 

about its cultural importance. Research in the United States on socio-cultural values created by 

54 

 
 
hunting has largely focused on the act of hunting itself providing physical, psychological, social, 

and economic benefits (Decker & Connelly, 1989; Hendee, 1974).  

In general, the sale of wildlife meat is illegal throughout the United States, although 

regulations vary from state to state and markets exist for some species (Abhat & Unger, 2010; 

Geist, 1988). As wildlife meat is generally not available in stores or restaurants in the United 

States, most wildlife meat is accessed through hunting or receiving it directly from a hunter 

without monetary exchange. Thus, the social networks of hunters play a major role in wildlife 

meat distribution and wildlife meat sharing is an integral part of hunting culture (Goguen & 

Riley, 2020; Goguen et al., 2018; Stedman & Decker, 1996). Identifying how wildlife 

contributes to US hunting culture will fill knowledge gaps and provide valuable insights for 

policy. 

Cultural Ecosystem Services  

In this dissertation, I use cultural ecosystem services as a framework to identify the 

cultural significance of wildlife meat. Cultural ecosystem services are the non-tangible benefits 

people derive from natural systems (MEA, 2005).  More specifically, “cultural ecosystem 

services are the contributions ecosystems make to human wellbeing in terms of the identities 

they help frame, experiences they help enable, and the capabilities they help equip” (Fish et al., 

2016, p. 212). Although defined as non-tangible, cultural ecosystem services can have material 

aspects or be tied to a material object (Fish et al., 2016; Plieninger et al., 2015; Satterfield et al., 

2013). In this study, they are tied to wildlife meat, which is also a provisional ecosystem service.  

Cultural ecosystem services have been critiqued for: a separationists perspective of 

humans and nature (Plieninger et al., 2015), a reductionist view of culture as a service 

(Plieninger et al., 2015; Setten et al., 2012), and being rooted in Western ideology and difficult to 

55 

 
 
transfer to indigenous ontologies (Pröpper & Haupts, 2014; Satterfield et al., 2013; Stalhammar 

& Pedersen, 2017). Additionally, cultural ecosystem services are difficult to define and quantify 

and thus often lack empirical evidence (Fish et al., 2016; Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013; Satz 

et al., 2013). For these reasons, cultural ecosystem services are often not adequately considered 

or represented in assessments, and their importance is not recognized in decision making (Daniel 

et al., 2012; Plieninger et al., 2013). However, cultural ecosystem services are directly 

experienced and intuitively appreciated, which makes them valued by the public (Milcu et al., 

2013; Plieninger et al., 2013). Cultural ecosystem services play an important role in motivating 

public support for conservation because the loss of cultural ecosystem services creates effects 

realized by society (Chan et al., 2011; Daniel et al., 2012). Furthermore, cultural ecosystem 

services enable decision makers to address the increased demand for cultural considerations in 

management (Satterfield et al., 2013) and enable more holistic assessments of management 

issues (MEA, 2005).  

Categorization of Cultural Ecosystem Services  

To assist in this assessment, I chose the following categorization of cultural ecosystem 

services: recreational and tourism, aesthetic, bequest, intrinsic and existence, spiritual and 

religious, educational, knowledge systems, social relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, 

cultural diversity, inspiration, and sense of place (Hernández-Morcillo, Plieninger et al., 2013; 

MEA, 2005; Milcu et al., 2013). Cultural ecosystem services categories are overlapping, 

interdependent, and evolve over time (Gee & Burkhard, 2010; Pröpper & Haupts, 2014; 

Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). The categorization of cultural ecosystem services is 

multifaceted and often oversimplified (Tengberg et al., 2012). Individuals perceive, experience, 

and value cultural ecosystem services according to their unique perspectives and experiences 

56 

 
 
(Plieninger et al 2015). Although division into categories may be subjective and nuanced, 

categorization can assist in assessment (Tengberg et al., 2012).  

Synergies between Provisional and Cultural Ecosystem Services 

In this chapter, I focus on connections, coined synergies, between provisional and 

cultural ecosystem services. Synergies occur when there is a positive association between two 

ecosystem services within or between categories (Cord et al, 2017; Lee & Lautenbach, 2016; 

Mouchet et al., 2014). Harvesting activities, such as fishing and gardening, provide both cultural 

and provisional ecosystem services (Calvet-Mir et al., 2012; Chan et al., 2012;). In the Lofoten 

Islands of Northern Norway, fishing provides not only provisional ecosystem services in the 

form of food, but also recreation and tourism, aesthetic, knowledge systems, social relations, 

cultural heritage, and sense of place cultural ecosystem services (Kaltenborn et al., 2017). 

Consuming and sharing wildlife meat is another example of a synergistic relationship: wildlife 

meat is a provisional ecosystem service that also provides cultural ecosystem services (Chapter 

2). Another form of synergy is the co-occurrence of multiple types of the same ecosystem 

service. As described above, fishing provides multiple cultural ecosystem services 

simultaneously. Wildlife meat is also another example of the co-occurrence of multiple cultural 

ecosystem services simultaneously (Chapter 2).  

Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Wildlife Meat 

Chapter 2 reviewed literature to explore how wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem 

services. Sharing and consuming wildlife meat with others can be an important way hunters 

create and maintain social relations (Condon et al., 1995; Dombrowski, 2007; Fergus, 1996; 

Gombay, 2005; Heffelfinger, 2014; Omura, 2013; Patton, 2005; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). 

Sharing and consuming wildlife meat is also tied to the construction, performance, and 

57 

 
 
maintenance of identity (Bair-Brake et al., 2014; Condon et al., 1995; Dombrowski, 2007; East 

et al., 2005; Maher et al., 2023; Ngade et al., 2017; Omura, 2013; Searles, 2002; Watkin Lui et 

al., 2016). Wildlife meat connects people to their collective and individual cultural heritage 

through its use in traditional activities that maintain continuity with the past (Condon et al., 

1995) and can function as a vehicle to explain and transmit culture to younger generations 

(Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Wildlife meat can be used for religious, spiritual, and cultural reasons 

due to its symbolic values (Adeola, 1992; Ahmed et al., 2022; Aiyadurai et al., 2010; Neto et al., 

2009; Omura, 2013; Titus et al., 2009; VanVliet et al., 2016; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). The 

knowledge and skills necessary for identifying, harvesting, processing, preparing, and consuming 

wildlife meat are a food knowledge system that is maintained and built by engaging in these 

activities and sharing this knowledge with others (Kaltenborn et al., 2017; Kuhnlein & Receveur, 

1996). Wildlife meat contributes to sense of place by providing connections to the homeland 

(Watkin Lui et al., 2016), aids in building an understanding of the land, and supporting people’s 

construction of place (Gombay, 2005). Consuming wildlife meat is popular with tourists because 

it is considered exotic and local, providing tourism cultural ecosystem services (Hoffman et al., 

2003). Many sources for this assessment came from literature about subsistence or indigenous 

communities, or relating to bushmeat from the tropics. This study will test whether or not this 

evidence is transferable to wildlife meat harvested under other circumstances. 

The Current Study  

My study seeks to better understand the value of wildlife by identifying the cultural 

ecosystem services that wildlife meat provides. Furthermore, I seek to do this in a context other 

than subsistence or indigenous communities, to expand understanding of the cultural importance 

of wildlife meat to other contexts. Findings from this study can also contribute to cultural 

58 

 
 
ecosystem services literature, providing further evidence for synergies between and within 

ecosystem service categories. This study takes place in the United States with a focus on 

venison, or the meat of true deer (family Cervidae), in particular, the meat of white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus). In the United States, white-tailed deer are the most abundant and 

popular big game species (Aiken & Harris, 2011; VerCauteren et al., 2011). A majority 

(estimated 93%) of wildlife meat harvested in the United States is from ruminants, most of which 

are white-tailed deer (Johnson et al., 2021). Deer hunting has a long history and heritage in many 

communities where deer are found (Stransky, 1984). In my study, I conducted in-depth, in-

person interviews with Michigan deer hunters about their venison-associated behaviors. The 

results of this study expand our understanding of the value of wildlife and can be used to inform 

policy and management decisions.  

Study Site, People, and Wildlife 

Methods 

The state of Michigan, located in the northcentral United States, had a population of 

9,883,640 people in 2010 (U.S. Census, 2010). Michigan’s licensed deer-hunting population 

ranked second in the US, and ranked fifth in the number of resident deer hunters 16 years and 

older (Fuller, 2016). About 90% of all annually-licensed hunters in Michigan obtain a license to 

hunt white-tailed deer, the most abundant deer species present in the state (Frawley, 2006). 

Besides contributing substantially to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 

budget, hunting contributes an estimated $2.3 billion to the state’s economy and is considered an 

important cultural heritage among the state’s residents (Langenau, 1994; MDNR, 2010; Rudolph, 

2005; Arnett & Southwick, 2015).  

In 2013, 712,404 people purchased at least one deer hunting license in Michigan, and an 

59 

 
 
estimated 661,788 people participated in the 2013 deer hunting season (Frawley, 2014). An 

estimated 11.4–14.5 million kg of venison from white-tailed deer is harvested annually in 

Michigan (Goguen et al., 2018). An estimated 75% of the Michigan population has consumed 

wildlife meat at some point in their life, while 49% consume venison annually, and >14% 

consume venison more than 10 times a year (Goguen & Riley, 2020). The mean age of Michigan 

license-purchasing deer hunters in 2013 was estimated to be 42 years, 89% of whom identify as 

male (Frawley, 2014).  

Participant Selection 

I used a qualitative approach of in-depth semi-structured interviews with a sample of 

state license purchasing deer hunters in Michigan. Hunters who received and responded to a 

mail-back 2013 Michigan Deer Harvest Study, had purchased a 2013 Michigan deer-hunting 

license, harvested at least one deer during the 2013 Michigan deer hunting season, and were 

residents of either Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, or Shiawassee county (Figure 3.1) comprised the 

sample population. In compliance with regulations governed by the Michigan State University 

Human Research Protection Program, individuals under the age of 18 were not considered for 

interviews. Tribal members and others who hunted under circumstances that did not require a 

license from the State of Michigan, were not part of the sample selected for this study. A 

maximum variation approach was used to select the interview sample (Patton, 1990). The sample 

was stratified by county (Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, or Shiawassee), community type (urban or not-

urban), and number of people a hunter reported sharing venison with on a previous questionnaire 

(Goguen et al. 2018). Sharing behaviors were divided into four categories based on the 

distribution of people with whom hunters reported sharing: none, 1-3 people, 4-10 people, and 

more than 10 people. Additional sample variation was sought in gender (male and female), 

60 

 
 
amount of deer harvested in 2013, and age. Community type was determined using the methods 

described in Goguen et al. 2018. 

Data Collection 

A total of 60 interviews were conducted between May-August 2014. Postcards describing 

the purpose of the study and providing researcher contact information (cell phone and email) 

were sent out in small waves (Appendix 3.1). Potential interviewees were offered a $25 gift card 

for their participation (which ended up being a $30 gift card due to bank regulations). If a hunter 

did not respond within two weeks, a second card was sent with an additional handwritten note 

discussing the importance of their participation. It was assumed that requiring individuals to call 

and schedule an interview would yield rich informants and allowed review of qualifications for 

inclusion in the study (Patton, 1990). 

If a hunter contacted the researcher, met the qualifications for inclusion in the study, and 

wished to participate in an in-person interview, a time was arranged to meet and conduct the 

interview in a location of their choice. All interviewees were given an informed consent 

document to read and sign prior to beginning the interview. Audio recordings of all interviews 

were taken with the permission of participants to improve the accuracy of data collection. These 

audio recordings were later transcribed by a professional transcription agency to minimize error 

through the application of training and quality assurance control (Babbie, 1990). By the 

completion of interviews no novel concepts and themes emerged. Researching this point of 

saturation indicates that the interviews conducted captured the diversity, depth and nuances of 

wildlife meat use and distribution in Michigan (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022).  

Interview Instrument 

Interview questions were developed with the input of expert advice and were piloted with 

61 

 
 
several different populations of hunters to ensure the validity and reliability of responses (Vaske, 

2008). Interviews were divided into two parts: 1) a combination of structured and semi-

structured open-ended questions (Appendix 3.2), and 2) a short survey consisting of closed and 

open-ended questions to ascertain demographic information not collected by the MDNR about 

the interviewee (Appendix 3.3). Hunters were asked questions about their 2013 deer harvest, 

deer processing, other sources of venison in the household, household venison consumption 

patterns, venison preparation, venison sharing external to the household, venison receiving and 

trading, the sociocultural value of venison and venison sharing, and any concerns or limitations 

they experience when sharing or consuming venison. After the interview was completed, a short 

background questionnaire was administered about the interviewee’s race, profession, current 

residence type, residence type when they were growing up, number of years lived in Michigan, 

highest level of education achieved, annual household income, and membership in hunting clubs. 

This questionnaire also provided an option for additional comments.  

Analyses  

Interview transcripts were analyzed using provisional, descriptive, in vivo, and attribute 

coding (Saldaña, 2016). Provisional coding started with a list of predetermined codes established 

by a priori knowledge or theory to ensure that the analysis aligned with research questions 

(Saldaña, 2016). Initial provisional codes were created from cultural ecosystem service 

categories: recreational and tourism, aesthetic, bequest, intrinsic and existence, spiritual and 

religious, educational, knowledge systems, social relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, 

cultural diversity, inspiration, and sense of place.  

Ten information-rich interviews that represented the diversity of participants and their 

experiences with venison were used for initial analysis. These ten interviews were used to 

62 

 
 
 
develop a more complex codebook with sub codes for each initial cultural ecosystem services 

code category. Descriptive, in vivo, and attribute coding were used to identify sub codes 

(Saldaña, 2016). To provide more control over the initial analysis, hard copies of interview 

transcripts were used (Saldaña, 2016).  Once a complete codebook was developed, it was entered 

into MAXQDA, and all interviews were analyzed using this computer-assisted qualitative 

analysis software. Coding was an iterative and multistep cyclical process where sub codes were 

revised, modified, expanded, or deleted throughout analysis.  

Description of Hunters Interviewed 

Results  

Almost all (96.7%) of the hunters interviewed identified their race and ethnicity as white, 

non-Hispanic. Two hunters identified as Hispanic or Latinx.  The majority interviewed (86.7%) 

were male. The mean age of interviewees was 49 (range 19–78 years). The hunters lived in rural 

(n = 22), suburban (n = 20), and urban (n = 18) community types. Hunters reported the following 

levels of education: high school diploma/GED (n = 8); associate degree (n = 6); technical or 

vocational degree (n = 3); some college (n = 15); bachelor’s degree (n = 19); graduate or 

professional degree (n = 9). Of the hunters who reported their household income (n = 57), 22.8% 

earned $0.00- $49,999, 47.4% earned $50,000-$99,999, and 29.8% earned greater than 

$100,000. Hunters reported a wide array of behaviors related to venison consumption and 

sharing, although all hunters ate at least some of their venison and shared it with at least one 

other person. 

Cultural Ecosystem Services  

I found evidence of venison providing cultural ecosystem services in the form of social 

relations, identity, cultural heritage, education, knowledge systems, and spiritual and religious 

63 

 
 
 
 
(Table 3.1). There was no evidence that venison provided cultural ecosystem services in the form 

of aesthetic, cultural diversity, bequest, intrinsic, and existence, inspiration, sense of place, or 

recreation and tourism. 

Social Relations  

Processing, cooking, sharing, and eating venison provided hunters with opportunities to 

create, maintain, and strengthen relationships. This was the most ubiquitous cultural ecosystem 

service provided by venison, present in every interview. Hunters perceived venison as important, 

thus sharing it emphasized or signaled the significance of relationships. Furthermore, venison 

processing provided opportunities for social engagement, sharing venison was used to 

demonstrate reciprocity, and providing venison to those in need was a way to support family, 

friends, or community.  

Hunters referred to venison as “something special” or a “prized possession”. The amount 

of time and effort that was put into acquiring venison was what made it more special. As Hunter 

12 described:  

“The venison as a food product is something that I’ve created with my hands. If I were a 

carpenter, I don’t know, maybe I’d build them a bookcase as a gift. But the hunting 

experience is special to me. I take a great deal of care in hunting morally and properly 

taking care of the meat. So, I guess it’s probably the equivalent of your next-door 

neighbor that has this wonderful garden bringing over really great tomatoes. It’s the same 

thing. I don’t grow a garden. I harvest deer, but it’s the same kind of deal. This is a 

venison garden that I— when I scouted, that’s putting in the seeds, and when I go out and 

spend time and make sure I’m in the right spot, well that’s the weeding, and then 

eventually I’ll get an opportunity to pick one. But it’s the same kind of thing, so it’s the 

64 

 
 
same sort of social interaction as if I had an apple tree and I went out and picked apples 

and make them available to my neighbors because I have it for those that like it, it’s 

something that I’ve made, if you will, and I give away. I have that feeling of giving them 

something that’s special to me and perhaps justify my existence.” 

Sharing something special, like venison, emphasized the importance of the relationships 

with whom venison was shared. Most hunters thought carefully about who they would choose to 

share their venison with. As Hunter 41 described, “Deer is my favorite red meat and I share it, 

but I only share it to very special people. I really do. I don't share it with people that are not 

special.” For many hunters, including Hunter 1, special people were identified as family and 

close friends. “I think that the people like my family, immediate family, that's important. My 

close friends, that's important. So that's how I choose [who to share my venison with] .” Venison 

was also reserved for special occasions, such as Hunter 60 describing a 4th of July celebration 

(U.S. Independence Day); “…then you might dig out the tenderloin and some chops and make it 

something a little bit more than just hamburger, just to make it a little bit more special.” Sharing 

something valuable was a way to signal the importance of a relationship, and thus maintain and 

strengthen it.  

For some hunters, processing a deer was a social activity and an opportunity to build and 

maintain relationships. For Hunter 4 and their family, processing the deer they harvested was a 

big family event and tradition: “We get together the Friday after Thanksgiving, that’s what we 

do. We process deer. We have a vacuum packager and sausage maker, sausage stuffer. We get 

most of it done that weekend.” Hunter 21 expressed a similar occurrence: “Now the grandsons 

are helping to cut and the sons or son-in-law’s will come over and we all kind of pitch in.” Some 

hunters described processing a deer as a time to bond or a fun time spent with family and friends. 

65 

 
 
 
Not all hunters, however, processed their own deer. Some brought it to a commercial processor 

and did not describe these experiences. 

Venison was reported as being used to say thank you or demonstrate reciprocity.  In this 

example, Hunter 7 used venison to maintain an important relationship with the landowner and to 

thank the landowner for allowing them to hunt their property:  

“To me though, my landowner is really, really important—that relationship. I don’t own 

property and I enjoy hunting on private land magnitudes better than state land and so, to 

me, it’s critical that I maintain a good relationship with the landowner and [sharing 

venison is] something I can do that gives back to them and maintains that relationship. 

They look forward to it, so I know that’s important to them and that is a good way to 

keep that relationship.” 

Providing venison to those in need was a way of supporting others. Venison was 

frequently given to family members, friends, or community members who needed assistance. As 

Hunter 4 explains: 

“Yeah, we don’t have to look real far in our community to find people who maybe don’t 

have a lot of resources or extra resources to go buy meat. Yeah, you know, you give them 

a couple grocery bags full [of venison], which is usually about 30 pounds or so.” 

Hunters talked about having an open freezer or family foodbank to provide venison to a family 

member who did not live within their household. Venison from this communal freezer was 

available without having to ask. As Hunter 23 described: 

“It's just stockpiled, and it's my stockpile, and if the daughter needs some, it's just in my 

freezer. Like I said earlier, it's a communal freezer, it's big and it gets full. But if anybody 

ever needs anything like [my children] or family members, it’s there. I have a [family] 

66 

 
 
food bank and I keep my [family] from going to a church or a food bank on their own, do 

you know what I mean? I subsidize my end of the world.” 

Venison was also provided to hunters who did not harvest a deer or families who used to have a 

source of venison and no longer do, due to a hunter aging or dying. Hunter 34 illustrates this 

scenario: 

“Well, if you are not able to get one this past year, you have friends, you have brothers, 

you have nephews that did. So yes, they will share. Sometimes you don’t even have to 

ask. They’ll say, “I shot a deer, you want something?” There you go. So literally every 

year, regardless if I shoot one or not, I will have venison in my freezer.” 

Identity  

Processing, sharing, and eating venison was tied to the formation or thickening of 

personal identity (individual goals, values, and beliefs) and social identity (definition of self in 

relation to others, including cultural identity) (Schwartz et al., 2006). For some hunters, sharing 

and consuming venison was considered a part of hunting culture and engaging in these activities 

was tied to their identity as a hunter. Hunters described sharing venison as “what you do” and “a 

rule”. Hunter 30 identified the sharing of venison as part of the culture of their church, which 

was located in a rural community: "And for sure, there's a venison dish here every time just 

because of the culture. [It] is a country church so they're all about bringing something that's 

wild." For Hunter 1, sharing venison was not so closely tied to hunting culture, as it was with a 

more universal cultural practice of food sharing. 

“I think that at a fundamental level sharing food or cooking a good meal and enjoying it 

with family and friends, that's an important part of culture. It's just what we do so, and I 

think venison helps us provide or fill that role.” 

67 

 
 
Respect for nature was an important cultural norm for many hunters. Hunters discussed 

how they treated the carcass and meat as a way of respecting the animal they killed. How respect 

was conveyed varied, however, engaging in these individually sanctioned acts was central to 

some individuals’ identities as hunters. Hunters described how the animal was handled in the 

field, how killing was talked about, how meat was processed and used, and how using as many 

parts of the deer as possible as ways to express respect for the harvested deer. For Hunter 14, 

properly cleaning and consuming the deer they shot was respecting the animal’s life they had 

taken: “You shoot it, you kill it, you eat it. You kill it, you clean it, and you eat it. You want it 

dead; you take responsibility for it.” Similarly, for Hunter 17, preparing a good meal was the best 

way to express their respect: “I bring it home and I give that animal as much respect in the 

kitchen as I possibly can...” Waste was also a concern for some hunters. For example, Hunter 8: 

“I do that [mount my deer] out of respect for the deer. They gave up their life and you should 

honor them no matter how big or small they are. [I] use every part of them.” Connecting the 

consumption of harvested deer to showing respect for the life taken deepens the meaning behind 

sharing and consuming venison to more than mere sustenance. 

Another way venison contributed to identity was through self-fulfillment. Hunters could 

fulfill their ambitions, capabilities, and desires through efforts relating to the harvest, sharing, 

and consumption of venison, thus enabling them to enact and fulfill their personal identity. 

Hunters talked about how providing venison made them feel good, self-worth, satisfaction, 

pleasure, pride, gratification, a sense of accomplishment, fulfillment, and rewarded. These 

sentiments were often linked to self-sufficiency or self-reliance. For example, Hunter 25 stated: 

“But it's that satisfaction of I hunted it, I harvested it, I field dressed it and I took it in, I 

got that and now I'm going to eat it. It's sort of a circle, do you know what I mean? Just 

68 

 
 
 
a—I don't what you'd call that. A certain amount of fulfillment of knowing I'm eating 

what I harvested.” 

Hunters expressed feeling fulfilled by their ability to take a deer from the field to the 

table and provide sustenance for themselves, their family, and their friends. Multiple hunters 

used the metaphor of woodworking or gardening to describe their connection to the venison they 

harvested. Using this metaphor, they expressed how the time and effort they put into harvesting 

venison made it special and sharing that was giving others “a piece of themselves”. Venison was 

the end product of their efforts, and thus symbolic of their identity as a hunter. As Hunter 23 

described: 

“Well, it's just knowing that somebody's getting something from you. Something that is 

given has to be acquired somehow, whether it's from the heart or pint of blood or store or 

trinket or birthday gift, but when you give something to somebody, something that you 

provided ... that's something that you hunted, prepared for, that's what you got up early 

for, that's what you went out there in the rain for, and then you enjoyed taking it and then 

you're giving that to somebody. That's giving something of yourself. That's giving a piece 

of your effort.” 

Cultural Heritage 

Venison is a physical part of the natural world that serves as a totem for stories, 

memories, knowledge, and traditions, which are passed down through generations and serve to 

perpetuate hunting culture.  Cultural heritage was identified when venison served as a totem for 

connecting to past events and experiences. For one hunter, venison was tied to childhood 

memories and brought feelings of nostalgia. For another, simply removing a package of meat 

from the freezer triggered memories of the day that meat was harvested and who was present. 

69 

 
 
Sharing venison provided an opportunity to share stories and memories about hunting. For 

example, Hunter 37 talked about sharing venison during the holidays, “At Thanksgiving time 

everyone is telling their stories—their hunting stories and stuff, so [sharing our venison] brings 

them out."  

Another way cultural heritage was identified was through knowledge related to venison 

procurement, processing, and preparation being passed on to others and down through 

generations. Hunter 9 described engaging his children when processing his deer: “I have my 

daughter helping me cut. Sometimes, I’ve had my one son that hunts deer quite a bit too help me 

out … And they’re learning, they’re learning from me what I’ve learned and I’m passing it 

down." Furthermore, hunters expressed the idea that showing people how to properly process a 

deer is “passing on the heritage.” Overall, the concept of passing on venison-related knowledge 

was important for perpetuating hunting culture. 

The final way that cultural heritage was identified in these interviews was in traditions 

created and passed on through the sharing and consumption of venison. For Hunter 51, venison 

is considered a traditional dish. “[Venison] is something that I grew up with and it is kind of a 

traditional thing.” Some hunters discussed the ritual of consuming the organs of freshly 

harvested deer. For example, Hunter 15 described, "At deer camp, it’s usually tradition the first 

deer, the liver and heart get consumed." Other hunters discussed that it has become a tradition to 

bring venison to certain events or to give venison as yearly gifts. Some hunters described 

developing new traditions related to venison. For example, Hunter 26 discussed developing a 

tradition of cooking venison tenderloins wrapped in bacon for Christmas Eve: “We just decided 

to do it one time and we've done it, I think, five years in a row now. So, it's starting to be a 

tradition as long as I can get [a deer].” 

70 

 
 
Education  

Processing, sharing, and eating venison provided hunters with an opportunity for formal 

and informal education about ethics, biology, and hunting. For Hunter 7, having extra venison 

provided the opportunity to teach their son about giving back to the community. 

“I like to teach my son that, just that ethical part of it, the giving back, so we like to 

[donate a deer] every year actually… it’s important for us to recognize that there is a need 

out there and if we’re fortunate enough to harvest multiple deer, we can certainly give 

back.” 

For Hunter 37, processing their deer became an opportunity to teach their daughter about deer 

anatomy. 

“My daughter was very interested in just how everything looks... But she’s interested in 

seeing everything from start to finish on it, so she looks through and sees the—how we 

gut the deer and all that stuff, so we show her all the different parts, the intestines and all 

that stuff. One year, she actually wanted to see what the brain looked like and all that 

kind of fun stuff—eyeballs and things like that.” 

Sharing venison also provided hunters with the opportunity to teach others about hunting. 

As mentioned before, venison can serve as a totem for memories and experiences of the hunt. 

When shared with non-hunters, venison can be used as a vehicle not only for sharing these 

stories, but for teaching non-hunters about hunting. For example, Hunter 39 talked about venison 

being “a conduit to talk with people about hunting.” Some hunters described telling non-hunters 

about the role venison plays in their diet and how hunting manages the deer herd, while sharing 

venison. Hunter 34 described this process:  

“Like I mentioned before, you are going to eat something that you shot and that is going 

71 

 
 
to be shared with a nonhunter, so not only are you telling a story, but you are also telling 

them how you got it, what day it was, how you brought it home, and then here you go, 

and then you are going to share the recipe, how to cook it. So it means so much.” 

Knowledge Systems  

The knowledge required for processing, cooking, sharing, and eating venison comprises a 

knowledge system. By engaging in these activities, hunters were constantly building knowledge 

themselves and sharing this built knowledge with others. As discussed in this chapter’s 

introduction, categories of cultural ecosystem services overlap and intertwine. Some of the ways 

that venison contributes to knowledge systems have already been described in examples of 

passing on knowledge to others when discussing cultural heritage and education. Processing a 

deer was often a point where hunters described building and passing knowledge on to others. For 

example, as Hunter 13 described: 

“I process my own animal and stuff like that, I think there are some aspects to when you 

process the animal correctly it tastes better. It depends on how you process it, how fast 

you cut it up, you know, how fast you get the hide off it, and stuff like that. It’s how long 

you let it hang. A deer should hang for at least three to four days and age a little bit, not 

when it’s 90 degrees out.” 

Hunter 7 described building knowledge around how to properly cook venison: “Now over 

the years of doing it, you develop recipes and a way of cooking and you just get good at and then 

that’s the way it works out."  

Spiritual and Religious  

Venison can be a vehicle for religious or spiritual thoughts and experiences. As 

mentioned previously, venison can be considered something special, and thus used to celebrate 

72 

 
 
 
 
special occasions. Some hunters used venison to help celebrate religious holidays, such as 

Christmas and Easter, either by cooking special dishes or by giving away venison as gifts. 

Multiple hunters described saving special cuts of the deer, such as the tenderloins, specifically 

for religious holiday celebrations.  

Some hunters expressed a spiritual or religious connection with taking the life of a deer 

and felt spiritually or religiously connected to, or responsible for, the animal they harvested. As 

Hunter 9 expressed: 

“Well, it’s odd because there’s a peculiar bond that I have with wildlife. I think my dad 

was quite a spiritual person and he instilled in me and my brother, that if you take 

something from the wild, you utilize it. You don’t allow it to spoil. My dad instilled that 

in my brother and I, that if you take something, you use it. It’s a spiritual kind of thing, I 

think really, a spiritual connection that we have with all the animals on the face of this 

earth ... when you take the life of an animal there’s a certain sadness, there’s also a 

certain reverence for that animal taken.” 

For Hunter 9, this spiritual connection with wildlife was derived from taking an animal’s 

life and enacted by utilizing that animal’s meat and other parts. For Hunter 21, the connection 

was more religious: “So, it's what I call honoring what God gives you out in the field, and taking 

care of it, and doing the right thing with it. Making sure that every part of that deer is used." For 

Hunter 21, their respect for the animal was tied to their religious beliefs. Their religious 

connection to an animal was also expressed through properly taking care of the carcass, and 

ensuing that nothing was wasted.  

Discussion 

These results contribute to theory by providing direct and detailed evidence that wildlife 

73 

 
 
meat provides cultural ecosystem services. Assessments of the ecosystem services provided by 

wildlife often completely disregard cultural ecosystem services (Bredin et al., 2015; Gorosábel et 

al., 2020), or are incomplete (Chardonnet et al., 2002; Maher et al, 2023; Valencia-Aguilar et al., 

2012). My study is novel in its application of the cultural ecosystem services framework to 

wildlife meat and the demonstration that the cultural ecosystem services framework is an 

effective tool for recognizing and articulating the cultural components of wildlife meat. 

Recognizing all of the ways that wildlife meat contributes to culture is important for holistic 

assessments. Identifying the cultural value of wildlife meat, and more broadly, wildlife, informs 

the consideration of these services in decision making. 

 Studies that do assess the cultural value of wildlife meat (such as Chausson et al., 2019) 

lack a framework for easy comparison. Applying the ecosystem services framework to wildlife 

meat can provide a common language and consistent articulation of values from wildlife meat 

across cultures, thus enhancing decision making (Lyver et al., 2017). The methods used in my 

study provide a way to identify cultural ecosystem services from wildlife meat through semi-

structured interviews and coding, similar to methods used by Gould et al. (2014). Although 

simple, these methods are effective at elucidating the myriad ways that wildlife meat provides 

cultural ecosystem services and are easily repeatable in other locations and populations. Using 

the ecosystem services framework for analysis enables a consistent approach across cases, while 

still providing the flexibility to encompass the broad array of cultural connections to wildlife 

meat.  

Additionally, this is the first study to identify cultural ecosystem services provided by 

wildlife meat in the United States. Although some recent studies in the US have also discussed 

the cultural value of wildlife meat (Ahmed et al., 2022; Maher et al., 2023), no studies have 

74 

 
 
focused exclusively on the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat, or in as much 

detail as the current study. The results of my study help fill a gap in our knowledge about 

wildlife meat and its cultural importance to hunters who do not identify as members of a 

subsistence or indigenous community, like the majority of hunters in Europe, the United States, 

and Canada. The hunters in my study, licensed deer hunters in Michigan, did not identify as 

members of an indigenous or subsistence community, yet wildlife meat provided them with 

cultural ecosystem services. Although cultural ecosystem services may vary based on an 

individual and their culture, it appears ubiquitous across cultures that wildlife meat provides 

cultural ecosystem services.  

My study contributes to the theoretical development of cultural ecosystem services by 

providing direct evidence for the co-generation of benefits through a synergistic relationship 

between provisional and cultural ecosystem services (Cord et al, 2017; Lee & Lautenbach, 2016; 

Mouchet et al., 2014). For example, if a hunter made a wildlife meat dinner for their friends 

(wildlife meat as a provisional ecosystem service), that dinner also signified the importance of 

that relationship (sharing wildlife meat with someone who is special – cultural ecosystem 

services in the form of social relations). Evidence for this type of relationship is limited 

(Plieninger et al., 2015). Recognizing this synergy is particularly important for harvesting 

activities, such as hunting, where provisional ecosystem services support cultural ecosystem 

services (Lyver et al., 2017). Cultural ecosystem services provided by provisional ecosystem 

services can be an integral part of culture. Increases in provisional ecosystem services may 

enhance culture; however, the loss of provisional ecosystem services may lead to the loss of 

culture. This emphasizes the importance of considering cultural ecosystem services when 

investigating provisional ecosystem services or when making policy decisions that affect 

75 

 
 
provisional ecosystem services. 

Because the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat are directly tied to a 

provisional ecosystem service, the presence of wildlife meat could be used as a proxy 

measurement for cultural ecosystem services as a whole. Cultural ecosystem services are 

difficult to identify, particularly in large populations using quantitative methods (Satz et al., 

2013). The synergistic relationship between cultural and provisional ecosystem services enables 

additional ways to measure the more difficult-to-assess cultural ecosystem services.   

In my study, I identified the co-occurrence of multiple cultural ecosystem services from 

one provisional ecosystem service. For example, a hunter processing a deer with their child 

expressed using the deer processing as an anatomy lesson (cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of education); the same hunter also donated venison to those in need (cultural ecosystem 

services in the form of social relations). This co-occurrence is important because the cultural 

ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat likely cannot be considered independently of one 

another (MEA, 2005). The polysemic nature of wildlife meat may add complexity for policy 

makers, as multiple, completing cultural ecosystem services may be present simultaneously. 

The results from my study present evidence that wildlife meat is deeply woven into the 

fabric of hunting culture in the US. Identifying that wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem 

services is evidence that the harvest, consumption, and sharing of wildlife meat are motivated by 

more than provisional ecosystem services. Interviews with hunters provide rich descriptions of 

the myriad ways wildlife is imbedded in the lives of hunters and those around them. Food and 

culture are often tightly linked (Bryant et al., 2003). Wildlife meat serves as a representation of 

hunting culture and a way to share hunting culture with others. Most hunting seasons in the US 

are short, but wildlife meat can extend engagement with hunting throughout the entire year. 

76 

 
 
The predominant way that wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services was by 

creating or enhancing relationships and strengthening communities. Hunters share their wildlife 

meat with others, especially non-hunters (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Goguen et al., 2018; Stedman 

& Decker, 1996).  In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, sharing wildlife meat contributes to 

the maintenance of rural communities (Maher et al., 2023). My study supports this finding, while 

also identifying more ways that wildlife meat contributes culturally to hunters and their 

communities. Wildlife meat is shared to strengthen social relationships and support those in need 

in subsistence and indigenous communities around the world (Chausson et al., 2019; Condon et 

al., 1995; Dombrowski, 2007; Morsello et al., 2015; Omura, 2013; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). 

Michigan deer hunters used venison in a similar manner, sharing mainly with family and close 

friends, but also with those in need directly or indirectly, such as by donating venison to food 

banks (Goguen & Riley 2020). It appears that wildlife meat plays an important role in the social 

relations of hunters around the world.  

Another key way that venison provided cultural ecosystem services was through the 

formation or thickening of hunters’ personal and social identity. A study of wild food 

environments in Montana found similar results, where researchers concluded that wild foods 

contributed to the cultural identity of rural residents (Ahmed et al., 2022). Similarly, a study 

involving hunters in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem suggested that self-reliance was tied to 

hunters’ identities and that self-sufficiency and food security was a cultural benefit of hunting 

(Maher et al., 2023). In interviews with hunters, Dizard (2003) found that harvesting wildlife 

meat provided hunters with a sense of security and self-assurance. Self-reliance and self-

sufficiency were key themes in my study, further supporting the claim that wildlife meat 

provides identity cultural ecosystem services to hunters in the United States. 

77 

 
 
My study did not find evidence for venison providing cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of aesthetic, cultural diversity, bequest, intrinsic, and existence, inspiration, sense of place, 

or recreation and tourism. A prior review of literature, mostly focused on indigenous or 

subsistence cultures (see Chapter 2), also did not identify that wildlife meat provides aesthetic, 

cultural diversity, bequest, intrinsic, and existence, or inspiration cultural ecosystem services. In 

contrast to the review presented in Chapter 2, my study did find evidence for educational cultural 

ecosystem services created by wildlife meat, which demonstrates that identifying cultural 

ecosystem services can be challenging and nuanced. Further research is needed before firm 

conclusions can be made about what services wildlife meat does not provide.   

Although evidence exists for wildlife meat providing cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of a sense of place (Gombay, 2005; Watkin Lui et al., 2016), I did not find evidence that 

venison provided Michigan deer hunters with this service. I propose that this is likely because no 

direct questions were asked about sense of place in connection to venison, rather than the 

absence of this service. Wildlife meat is often considered a local food (Tidball et al., 2013), 

which supports the idea that wildlife meat connects US hunters to their local environments or the 

landscapes where the meat was acquired. Future studies involving more directed conversations 

about wildlife meat and its ties to the land may yield different insights.  

Recreation and tourism cultural ecosystem services were also not identified in my study, 

but present in the Chapter 2 analysis. Although hunting provides cultural ecosystem services in 

the form of recreation, the focus of this dissertation is on wildlife meat and the ecosystem 

services provided once an animal has been killed. In Chapter 2, wildlife meat was identified as 

providing tourism cultural ecosystem services. For example, tourists in South Africa consuming 

wildlife meat at restaurants (Hoffman et al., 2003). My study focused only on resident hunters, 

78 

 
 
which resulted in a limited estimate of the total ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat. 

Asking non-hunters and non-resident hunters about their experiences with wildlife meat is 

necessary to gain a more complete picture of the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife 

meat. It is important to note that in most contexts, venison cannot be sold in the United States; 

thus, tourists in the United States are not able to legally purchase hunter-harvested venison at 

restaurants (Freese, 1997; Organ et al., 2012). 

Limitations 

The co-occurrence of cultural ecosystem services can make them difficult to categorize, 

especially as categories overlap and cannot always be treated independently (Gee & Burkhard, 

2010; MEA, 2005; Plieninger et al., 2013). This was true in my analyses, particularly with the 

categories of cultural heritage and identity, and knowledge systems and education. During 

coding, sections of text were allowed to have multiple codes at the same time to allow to account 

for this overlapping. When it came to the reporting of results, however, quotes were used to 

represent only one category at a time, and were not repeated.  

Study findings only provide a cross section in time, yet ecosystem services change from 

system to system, site to site, and time to time. For example, all interviews were conducted prior 

to wild white-tailed deer testing positive for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Michigan near 

my study site (MDNR, 2020). Additional interviews are needed to assess if the emergence of 

CWD has affected the cultural ecosystem services that wildlife meat provides Michigan deer 

hunters. 

Hunters were identified using responses to a survey, which could lend bias to hunters for 

whom the topic of wildlife meat is especially salient given their willingness to respond to the 

survey. Additionally, only hunters who harvested a deer were interviewed; hunters who had not 

79 

 
 
recently harvested wildlife meat may have different experiences. However, having information 

on hunter’s harvest and sharing enabled selection of a wide variation of sharing behaviors, and 

hunter’s willingness to discuss their harvest provided rich descriptions for analysis.  

Interviews were conducted in a small geographic area with a relatively homogenous 

group. The way cultural ecosystem services are defined or described depends on individuals and 

their culture. Similar studies in different areas are needed to triangulate results. Although 

findings from my study cannot be extrapolated to other systems directly, the results provide 

systemic insights about how wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services. That wildlife 

meat provides cultural ecosystem services appears universal in communities where wildlife meat 

is harvested and consumed (Chapter 2); however, what specific services are provided and how 

those are created likely varies with individual and cultural differences. The cultural ecosystem 

services framework in my study was used in a western culture by a western researcher.  There 

may be issues of transferability of study methods if this study were repeated in a non-western 

cultural context. 

Conclusion 

Wildlife meat can only provide cultural ecosystem services if it is used and valued 

(MEA, 2005). Changes in access to wildlife meat could also change what cultural ecosystem 

services, if any, are provided. Issues of disease and contamination, a reduction in or loss of 

wildlife available for hunting, or changes to hunting regulations can all negatively impact a 

hunter’s willingness or ability to harvest wildlife meat, resulting in a potential loss of cultural 

ecosystem services (Kaltenborn et al., 2017). When making policy decisions that affect wildlife 

meat, it is important to consider that wildlife meat is not just a provisional ecosystem service, but 

also provides cultural ecosystem services, and can provide multiple cultural ecosystem services 

80 

 
 
simultaneously.  

Results from my study advance our understanding of the societal value derived from 

wildlife and elucidate more fully the multiple ecosystem services provided by wildlife. The 

provisional and cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat have been absent from 

reported valuations of hunting, and thus, unavailable to aid in decision making. Recognizing the 

myriad benefits wildlife meat provides to society enables a more complete assessment of the use 

and value of wildlife. Additionally, recognition of the cultural importance of wildlife meat may 

help support the perpetuation of hunting as a cultural activity, despite changing wildlife value 

orientations toward mutualism and protectionism (Manfredo et al., 2003; Manfredo et al., 2009). 

Framing hunting around food or community bolsters public support for hunting (Blascovich & 

Metcalf, 2019; Decker et al., 2015). Considering the cultural ecosystem services provided by 

wildlife meat when addressing public health policy, wildlife population management, or changes 

to hunting regulations provides a more complete assessment of the effects of these policies. 

81 

 
 
FIGURES 

Figure 3.1: 

Map of counties in Michigan (either Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, or Shiawassee) where interviews 
took place. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.1: 

TABLES 

The cultural ecosystem service categories used in this study, their definitions, and how they were 
interpreted in the context of wildlife meat.  

CES 
Category 
Cultural 
Heritage 

Identity 

Education 

Knowledge 
Systems 

Social 
Relations 

Spiritual & 
Religious 

Definition 

Application to wildlife meat 

Legacy of biophysical features, 
physical artifacts, and intangible 
attributes (related to the natural world) 
of a group or society that are inherited 
from past generations, maintained in 
the present, and bestowed for the 
benefit of future generations (Daniel et 
al., 2012). 
Formation or thickening of cultural 
identity tied to an ecosystem and/or it’s 
components (Chan et al., 2012). 
Ecosystems, their components and 
processes provide a basis for formal 
and informal education (MEA, 2005). 
Ecosystems influence the types of 
knowledge systems developed 
(traditional and formal) (MEA, 2005). 

Ecosystems provide opportunities for 
creating and enhancing relationships 
and strengthen communities (Calbet-
Mir et al., 2012). 
Attach spiritual and religious values to 
ecosystems and their components 
(MEA, 2005) and ecosystems are a 
source of inspiration for religious or 
spiritual thought and experience (Chan 
et al., 2012).   

Wildlife meat is a physical part of the 
natural world that serves as a totem for 
stories and memories, involved in 
traditions, and source of knowledge 
that are part of hunters’ cultural 
heritage and passed down through 
generations. 

Formation or thickening of identity 
tied to the processing, sharing, and 
eating of wildlife meat. 
Processing, sharing, and eating wildlife 
meat provides a basis for formal and 
informal education. 
Processing, cooking, sharing, and 
eating wildlife meat helps build 
knowledge systems related to wildlife 
meat. 
Processing, cooking, sharing, and 
eating wildlife meat provides 
opportunities to create, maintain, and 
strengthen relationships. 
Wildlife meat is a source for religious 
or spiritual thoughts and experiences. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 REFERENCES 

Abhat, D., & Unger, K. (2010) Managing wildlife in shades of gray: Threats to the pillars of the 

North American Model. The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010.  

Adeola, M. O. (1992). Importance of wild animals and their parts in the culture, religious 

festivals, and traditional medicine, of Nigeria. Environmental Conservation, 19(2), 125–
134. 

Ahmed, S., Warne, T., Stewart, A., Byker Shanks, C., & Dupuis, V. (2022). Role of wild food 

environments for cultural identity, food security, and dietary quality in a rural American 
state. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 774701. 

Aiken, R., & Harris, A. (2011). Deer hunting in the United States: Demographics and trends. 
Addendum to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 
Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Report 2006-10.  

 Aiyadurai, A., Singh, N. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). Wildlife hunting by indigenous 
tribes: A case study from Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Oryx, 44(4), 564–572. 

Alvard, M. S., Robinson, J. G., Redford, K. H., & Kaplan, H. (1997). The sustainability of 

subsistence hunting in the neotropics: La sustentabilidad de la caza de subsistencia en el 
neotrópico. Conservation Biology, 11(4), 977–982. 

Arnett, E. B., & Southwick, R. (2015). Economic and social benefits of hunting in North 
America. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(5), 734–745. 

Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods. Wadsworth Publication Company.  

Bair‐Brake, H., Bell, T., Higgins, A., Bailey, N., Duda, M., Shapiro, S., Eves, H. E., Marano, N., 

& Galland, G. (2014). Is that a rodent in your luggage? A mixed method approach to 
describe bushmeat importation into the United States. Zoonoses and Public Health, 61(2), 
97–104. 

Bennett, E. L., & Robinson, J. G. (2000). Hunting of wildlife in tropical forests: Implications for 

biodiversity and forest peoples. The World Bank.  

Blascovich, G. M., & Metcalf, A. L. (2019). Improving non-hunters’ attitudes toward 

hunting. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 24(5), 480–487. 

Brashares, J. S., Golden, C. D., Weinbaum, K. Z., Barrett, C. B., & Okello, G. V. (2011). 

Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13931–13936. 

Bredin, Y. K., Lindhjem, H., van Dijk, J., & Linnell, J. D. (2015). Mapping value plurality 

towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: AQ 

84 

 
 
 
analysis. Ecological Economics, 118, 198–206. 

Bryant, C. A., DeWalt, K. M., Courtney, A., & Schwarts, J. (2003). The cultural feast: An 

introduction to food and society (2nd ed.). Wadsworth. 

Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Reyes-García, V. (2012). Beyond food production: 

Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan 
Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics, 74, 153–160. 

Chan, K. M., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R., Vadeboncoeur, 

N., & Woodside, U. (2011). Cultural services and non-use values. In P. Kareva, H. Tallis, 
T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, & S. Polasky (Eds.), Natural capital: Theory and practice of 
mapping ecosystem services (pp. 206–228). Oxford University Press.  

Chan, K. M., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., 
Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., 
Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., & Woodside, U. (2012). Where are cultural and 
social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive 
engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756. 

Chardonnet, P., Clers, B. D., Fischer, J., Gerhold, R., Jori, F., & Lamarque, F. (2002). The value 

of wildlife. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties, 21(1), 
15–52. 

Chausson, A. M., Rowcliffe, J. M., Escouflaire, L., Wieland, M., & Wright, J. H. (2019). 

Understanding the sociocultural drivers of urban bushmeat consumption for behavior 
change interventions in Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo. Human Ecology, 47(2), 179–
191. 

Condon, R. G., Collings, P., & Wenzel, G. (1995). The best part of life: Subsistence hunting, 

ethnicity, and economic adaptation among young adult Inuit males. Arctic, 48(1), 31–46. 

Cord, A. F., Bartkowski, B., Beckmann, M., Dittrich, A., Hermans-Neumann, K., Kaim, A., 

Lienhoop, N., Locher-Krause, K., Priess, J., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Schwarz, N., Seppelt, 
R., Strauch, M., Václavík, T., & Volk, M. (2017). Towards systematic analyses of 
ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road 
ahead. Ecosystem Services, 28, 264–272. 

Corradini, A., Marescotti, M. E., Demartini, E., & Gaviglio, A. (2022). Consumers' perceptions 
and attitudes toward hunted wild game meat in the modern world: A literature 
review. Meat Science, 194, 108955. 

Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chane, K. M., Costanzaf, R., 
Elmqvistg, E., Flinth, C. G., Gobsteri, P. H., Grêt-Regameyj, A., Lavek, R., Muharl, S., 
Penkerm, M., Riben, R. G., Schauppenlehnerb, T., Sikoro,T., Soloviyp, I., Spierenburgq, 
M., Taczanowskab, K., Tame, J., & von der Dunkj, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural 

85 

 
 
services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819. 

Davies, G., & Brown, D. (Eds). (2007). Bushmeat and Livelihoods: Wildlife Management and 

Poverty Reduction. Wiley-Blackwell. 

Decker, D. J., & Connelly, N. A. (1989). Motivations for deer hunting: Implications for 

antlerless deer harvest as a management tool. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–
2006), 17(4), 455–463. 

Decker, D. J., Stedman, R. C., Larson, L. R., & Siemer, W. F. (2015). Hunting for wildlife 

management in America. The Wildlife Professional, 9(1), 26–29. 

Dizard, J. E. (2003). Mortal stakes: Hunters and hunting in contemporary America. University 

of Massachusetts Press.  

Dombrowski, K. (2007). Subsistence livelihood, native identity and internal differentiation in 

Southeast Alaska. Anthropologica, 49(2), 211–229. 

East, T., Kümpel, N. F., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2005). Determinants of urban 
bushmeat consumption in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. Biological Conservation, 126(2), 
206–215. 

Freese, C. H. (Ed.). (1997). Harvesting wild species: Implications for biodiversity conservation. 

The John Hopkins University Press.  

Fergus, J. (1996, June). Guess who’s coming to dinner: Should you invite an anti-hunter to share 

a meal with you? Outdoor Life, 197(6), 22–23.  

Fiala, M., Marveggio, D., Viganò, R., Demartini, E., Nonini, L., & Gaviglio, A. (2020). LCA 

and wild animals: Results from wild deer culled in a northern Italy hunting 
district. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118667. 

Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualizing cultural ecosystem services: A novel 
framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217. 

Food Law, Act 92 (2000). Michigan. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-act-92-of-2000. 

Frawley, B. J. (2014). Michigan deer harvest survey report 2013 seasons. Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources. Wildlife Report No. 3585. 

Frawley, B. J. (2006). Demographics, recruitment, and retention of Michigan hunters: 2005 

update. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report No. 3462. 

Fuller, M. (2016). Deer hunting in the United States: Demographics and trends: Addendum to the 

2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Report 

86 

 
 
No. 2011-10). Retried from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Digital Library: 
http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/2134 

Gee, K., & Burkhard, B. (2010). Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind 
farming: A case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological 
Complexity, 7(3), 349–358. 

Geist, V. (1988). How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, 

jeopardize wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 2(1), 15–26.  

Goguen, A. D. & Riley, S. J. (2020). Consumption of Wild-Harvested Meat in Society. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, 44(3), 553–563. 

Goguen, A. D., Riley, S. J., Organ, J. F., & Rudolph, B. A. (2018). Wild-harvested venison 

yields and sharing by Michigan deer hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(3), 197–
212. 

Gombay, N. (2005). Shifting identities in a shifting world: Food, place, community, and the 

politics of scale in an Inuit settlement. Environment and Planning D: Society and 
Space, 23(3), 415–433. 

Gomez, J., Van Vliet, N., & Canales, N. (2022). The values of wildlife revisited. Ecology and 

Society, 27(4). 

Gorosábel, A., Bernad, L., & Pedrana, J. (2020). Ecosystem services provided by wildlife in the 

Pampas region, Argentina. Ecological Indicators, 117, 106576. 

Gould, R. K., Ardoin, N. M., Woodside, U., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., & Daily, G. C. (2014). 
The forest has a story: Cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawai ‘i. Ecology and 
Society, 19(3). 

Gurven, M. (2004). To give and to give not: The behavioral ecology of human food transfers. 

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(4), 543–583.  

Hall, J. C., Gum, H., & Pietkoski, K. (2020). Wild alternatives: Accounting for and rethinking 

the relationship between wild game and food security in Appalachian food 
systems. Applied Geography, 124, 102329. 

Heffelfinger, J. (2014, Nov/Dec), The Gift of Venison. Tracks, 42–46.  

Hendee, J. C. (1974). A multiple-satisfaction approach to game management. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, 2(3), 104–113. 

Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A 
systematic review of empirical tests. Social science & medicine, 292, 114523. 

87 

 
 
Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural 

ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Cawthorn, D. M. (2012). What is the role and contribution of meat from 

wildlife in providing high quality protein for consumption? Animal Frontiers, 2(4), 40–
53. 

Hoffman, L. C., Crafford, K., Muller, N., & Schutte, D. W. (2003). Perceptions and consumption 
of game meat by a group of tourists visiting South Africa. South African Journal of 
Wildlife Research, 33(2), 125–130. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006). Game and venison–meat for the modern consumer. Meat 

Science, 74(1), 197–208. 

Johnson, J. L., Zamzow, B. K., Taylor, N. T., & Moran, M. D. (2021). Reported US wild game 

consumption and greenhouse gas emissions savings. Human Dimensions of 
Wildlife, 26(1), 65–75. 

Kaltenborn, B. P., Linnell, J. D., Baggethun, E. G., Lindhjem, H., Thomassen, J., & Chan, K. M. 

(2017). Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A 
case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological 
Economics, 140, 166–176. 

Kempen, E., Wassenaar, A., & Tobias-Mamina, R. (2023). South African consumer attitudes 

underlying the choice to consume game meat. Meat Science, 201, 109175. 

Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (1996). Dietary change and traditional food systems of 

indigenous peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition, 16(1), 417–442. 

Langenau, E. (1994). 100 years of deer management in Michigan. Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report Number 3213. 

Lee, H., & Lautenbach, S. (2016). A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem 

services. Ecological Indicators, 66, 340–351. 

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., Heberlein, T. A., & Ericsson, G. (2012). Eat prey and love: Game‐meat 

consumption and attitudes toward hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 36(4), 669–675. 

Lyver, P. O. B., Timoti, P., Gormley, A. M., Jones, C. J., Richardson, S. J., Tahi, B. L., & 

Greenhalgh, S. (2017). Key Māori values strengthen the mapping of forest ecosystem 
services. Ecosystem services, 27, 92–102. 

Maher, S. M., Barker, K. J., Kroetz, K., Butsic, V., Leonard, B., & Middleton, A. D. (2023). 

Assessing the ecosystem services and disservices provided by migratory wildlife across 
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Biological Conservation, 283, 110090. 

88 

 
 
Mainka, S., & Trivedi, M. (Eds.) (2002). Links between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods 
and Food Security: The sustainable use of wild species for meat.  International Union for 
Conservation of Nature.  

Manfredo, M., Teel, T., & Bright, A. (2003). Why are public values toward wildlife 

changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(4), 287–306. 

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Henry, K. L. (2009). Linking society and environment: A 

multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United 
States. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 407–427. 

Marchello, M. J., Berg, P. T., Slanger, W. D., & Harrold, R. L. (1985). Cutability and nutrient 

content of white-tailed deer. Journal of Food Quality, 7(4), 267–275.  

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2010). Michigan deer management plan. 

Wildlife Division Report No. 3512. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2020). [Interactive dashboard showing 
statewide CWD testing results]. https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-
79136_79608_90516_90536_90552_90560---,00.html 

Milcu, A., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A 

literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 1–34. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Current 

state and trends. Island Press. 

Morsello, C., Yagüe, B., Beltreschi, L., Van Vliet, N., Adams, C., Schor, T., Quiceno-Mesa, M. 

P., & Cruz, D. (2015). Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption 
and preference than economic factors among urban Amazonians from Brazil and 
Colombia. Ecology and Society, 20(4). 

Mouchet, M. A., Lamarque, P., Martín-López, B., Crouzat, E., Gos, P., Byczek, C., & Lavorel, 
S. (2014). An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations 
between ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 28, 298–308. 

Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G., & Christophersen, T. 

(2008). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: The bushmeat crisis 
(Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 33). 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-33-en.pdf 

Nasi, R., Taber, A., & Van Vliet, N. (2011). Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and 

livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13(3), 355-
368. 

Needham, T., Bureš, D., Černý, J., & Hoffman, L. C. (2023). Overview of game meat utilization 

89 

 
 
challenges and opportunities: A European perspective. Meat Science, 109284. 

Neto, N. A. L., Brooks, S. E., & Alves, R. R. (2009). From Eshu to Obatala: animals used in 

sacrificial rituals at Candomblé "terreiros" in Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and 
Ethnomedicine, 5, 1–10. 

Ngade, I. N. M., Singer, M., Marcus, O., & Hasemann, J. (2017). Implications of changing 

attitudes towards game meat consumption at the time of Ebola in Limbe, 
Cameroon. Human Organization, 76(1), 48–58. 

Omura, K. (2013) The ontology of sociality: Sharing and subsistence mechanisms. In Kawai, K. 
(Ed.). Groups: The evolution of human sociality. Kyoto University & Trans Pacific Press. 

Organ, J. F., Geist, V., Mahoney, S. P., Williams, S., Krausman, P. R., Batcheller G. R., Decker, 

T. A., Carmichael, R., Nanjappa, P., Regan, R., Medellin, R. A., Cantu, R., McCabe, R. 
E., Craven, S., Vecellio, G. M., & Decker, D. J. (2012). The North American Model of 
Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society. 

Patton, J. Q. (2005). Meat sharing for coalitional support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 

137–157. 

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications. 

Paulsen, P., Bauer, A., & Smulders, F. J. M. (Eds.). (2014). Trends in game meat hygiene: From 

forest to fork. Wageningen Academic Publishers.  

Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Byg, A., Hartel, T., Hurley, P., López-Santiago, C., 

Nagabhatla, N., Oteros-Rozas, E., Raymond, C., van der Horst, D., & Huntsinger, L. 
(2015). The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and 
planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 28-33. 

Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and 

quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–
129. 

Pröpper, M., & Haupts, F. (2014). The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process 

and transformation. Ecological Economics, 108, 28–35. 

Rudolph, B.A. (2005). Population biology, abundance, and management history of Michigan 

white-tailed deer. Paper presented at the Michigan Society of American Foresters 
“Forests and Whitetails-Striving for Balance.” St. Ignace, Michigan, 9–10 June.  

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publishing.   

Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, intangibles 
and metrics in environmental management. Journal of environmental management, 117, 

90 

 
 
103–114. 

Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., 

Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges 
of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental 
assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. 

Searles, E. (2002). Food and the making of modern Inuit identities. Food and Foodways, 10(1-

2), 55–78. 

Setten, G., Stenseke, M., & Moen, J. (2012). Ecosystem services and landscape management: 

Three challenges and one plea. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem 
Services & Management, 8(4), 305–312. 

Schenck, M., Nsame Effa, E., Starkey, M., Wilkie, D., Abernethy, K., Telfer, P., Godoy, R., & 

Treves, A. (2006). Why people eat bushmeat: Results from two-choice, taste tests in 
Gabon, Central Africa. Human Ecology, 34(3), 433–445. 

Schwartz, S. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Briones, E. (2006). The role of identity in acculturation 

among immigrant people: Theoretical propositions, empirical questions, and applied 
recommendations. Human development, 49(1), 1–30. 

Stålhammar, S., & Pedersen, E. (2017). Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people 

describe the value? Ecosystem Services, 26, 1–9. 

Stanford, C. B., & Bunn, H. T. (Eds.). (2001). Meat-eating and human evolution. Oxford 

University Press.  

Stedman, R. C., & Decker, D. J. (1996). Illuminating an overlooked hunting stakeholder group: 

nonhunters and their interest in hunting. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(3), 29-41. 

Stransky, J.J. (1984). Hunting the whitetail. In Halls, L. K. (ed). White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and 

Management. Stackpole Books. 

Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. (2012). 

Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and 
identity. Ecosystem Services, 2, 14–26. 

Tidball, K. G., Tidball, M. M., & Curtis, P. (2013). Extending the locavore movement to wild 

fish and game: questions and implications. Natural Sciences Education, 42(1), 185–189. 

Tidball, M. M., Tidball, K. G., & Curtis, P. (2014). The absence of wild game and fish species 
from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference: Addressing 
information gaps in wild caught foods. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53(2), 142–148. 

Titus, K., Haynes, T. L., & Paragi, T. F. (2009). The importance of moose, caribou, deer, and 

91 

 
 
small game in the diet of Alaskans. In Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: 
Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund.  

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State & county Quickfacts: Michigan, USA.  Retrieved March 15, 

2015, from http://quickfacts.census.gov. 

Valencia-Aguilar, A., Cortés-Gómez, A. M., & Ruiz-Agudelo, C. A. (2013). Ecosystem services 
provided by amphibians and reptiles in Neotropical ecosystems. International Journal of 
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9(3), 257–272. 

Van Vliet, N., Cornelis, D., Beck, H., Lindsey, P., Nasi, R., LeBel, S., Moreno, J., Fragoso, J., & 
Jori, F. (2016). Meat from the wild: Extractive uses of wildlife and alternatives for 
sustainability. In R. Mateo, B. Arroyo, & Garcia, J. T. (Eds), Current Trends in Wildlife 
Research (pp. 225–265). Springer International Publishing. 

Van Vliet, N., & Mbazza, P. (2011). Recognizing the multiple reasons for bushmeat 

consumption in urban areas: A necessary step toward the sustainable use of wildlife for 
food in Central Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(1), 45–54. 

Van Vliet, N., Muhindo, J., Nyumu, J., Enns, C., Massé, F., Bersaglio, B., Cerutti, P., & Nasi, R. 

(2022). Understanding factors that shape exposure to zoonotic and food-borne diseases 
across wild meat trade chains. Human Ecology, 50(6), 983–995. 

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human 

dimensions. Venture Publishing. 

VerCauteren, K. C., Anderson, C. W., Van Deelen, T. R., Drake, D., Walter, W. D., Vantassel, 

S. M. & Hygnstrom, S. E. (2011). Regulated commercial harvest to manage 
overabundant white-tailed deer:An idea to consider? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35, 185-
194. 

Volpato, G., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Gruppuso, P., Zocchi, D. M., & Pieroni, A. (2020). Baby 

pangolins on my plate: Possible lessons to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal 
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16(19), 1–12.  

Watkin Lui, F., Stoeckl, N., Delisle, A., Kiatkoski Kim, M., & Marsh, H. (2016). Motivations for 
sharing bushmeat with an urban diaspora in Indigenous Australia. Human Dimensions of 
Wildlife, 21(4), 345–360. 

Wegner, G. I., Murray, K. A., Springmann, M., Muller, A., Sokolow, S. H., Saylors, K., & 

Morens, D. M. (2022). Averting wildlife-borne infectious disease epidemics requires a 
focus on socio-ecological drivers and a redesign of the global food 
system. EClinicalMedicine, 47. 

Wilkie, D. S., & Carpenter, J. F. (1999). Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: An assessment 

of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 8(7), 927–955. 

92 

 
 
APPENDIX 3.1: MICHIGAN POSTCARD 

Figure 3.2: 

Michigan Postcard. 

Note. The back and front of the postcard sent to Michigan hunters inviting them to participate in 
the study.  

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 3.2: MICHIGAN INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT  

General Introductory Questions 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 

How did you learn to hunt?  
Who taught you? 
At what age did you start hunting? 
What species do you mostly hunt or do you hunt a variety of species? 
When did you start deer hunting? (If first hunting experience was not related to deer) 
How frequently do you deer hunt? 
Do you go deer hunting with anyone else or do you hunt alone? 
What are you main reasons or motivations for deer hunting? 

Although you may participate in other hunting seasons, and may consume and share wild game 
meat from numerous species, this research focuses on venison. If you are interested in sharing 
more information about the other species you harvest, consume and share we can talk about this 
at the end of the interview or set up another time to talk. We focus on deer because of the large 
quantity of meat that comes from a harvested deer and the popularity of deer hunting.  Also, as 
we are asking for detailed information we felt it may be too much to ask the interviewee to recall 
information on all of the species they harvest. The remainder of this interview will focus on 
white tailed deer harvest and the consumption and sharing of venison.  

How many deer did you harvest in this past 2013 deer hunting season? What were they? 

Deer Harvest 
1. 
Buck? Doe? Fawn? (If they say yearling or button buck ask for more information to try and 
figure out age) 
2. 

How does this compare with what you would consider a normal year?  

Why did you choose to use a commercial processor? 
What did you have your meat processed into? 
Are there any special parts you keep? For what reason? 

Deer Processing 
What did you do with this/these deer after you harvested it/them? For example did you 
1. 
take them to a processor, process it/them yourself, donate it/them to an organization, charity, or 
another person, or keep for a trophy mount? 
Is this what you normally do? 
2. 
Commercial Processor 
3. 
a. 
b. 
c. 
Self -Process 
a. 
b. 
c. 
d. 
Donated 
a. 
b. 
c. 

Why did you choose to process your deer yourself? 
Does anyone help you? 
What parts do you keep?  
Are there any special parts you keep? For what reason? 

Who did you donate/give away deer to? 
What are the primary reasons you choose to donate/give away deer? 
If given to another person (not organization) what did this person do with it/them? 

4. 

5. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

d. 
Taxidermy/Trophy 
a. 
b. 
c. 

What were the costs involved? (If donated or charity or organization) 

What part did you have preserved? Why did you choose to preserve it? 
What did you have your meat processed into? 
Are there any special parts you keep? For what reason? 

Other Household Harvesting and Processing 
1. 
2. 

Does anyone else in your household hunt deer?  
If yes, did they harvest a deer in the 2013 season?  
a. 
b. 
How was this/these deer processed? 
Is this venison combined with the venison you harvested or are they kept separate? 

How many?  
What Kind? Buck? Doe? Fawn? 

3. 
4. 

Venison Consumption 
1. 
2. 
3. 

Do you eat the venison that you harvest? 
If no, is there any particular reason why not? 
Are there any members of your household who eat the venison you harvest? 
a. 
b. 
Is there a time of the year that you (and your household) eat more venison or do you 

If yes, Who? Why? 
If no, Why not? 

4. 
consume the same amount year round?  

a. 

b. 

If consumption varies 
i. 
ii. 
iii. 
If consumption is the same 
i. 

 When do you eat venison most often? 
How often do you consume venison during this time period? 
How often do you consume venison during the rest of the year? 

How often do you consume venison throughout the year? 
How important is venison to your diet? (Large source of overall protein intake or just 

5. 
something you eat every once and a while or for a special occasion?) 

Venison Preparation  
1. 
2. 
3. 

Who normally cooks in your household? 
Who normally cooks red meat in your household? 
Who cook the venison you (and your household) eat? 

Venison Sharing External to Household 
1. 
relatives, friends, coworkers?  

Do you share the venison you harvest with anyone outside of your household such as 

If Yes, use chart. 
If no, is there any particular reason why you don’t share the venison you harvest? 

a. 
b. 
How do you choose whom to share your venison with? 
How do you determine how much meat to keep versus share? 
What parts do you keep versus share? How do you determine what to keep and what to 

Is there a time of the year you share more venison or do you share the same amount 

2. 
3. 
4. 
share? 
5. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
throughout the year? 

a. 
b. 

If yes, what time of year do you share the most? 
If all year, How often do you think you share throughout the year?  

Venison Receiving 
1. 

Do you (or your household) ever receive venison from anyone else?  
a. 
b. 
During or after this past 2013 season did you receive venison from anyone else? (Use the 

If yes, Chart 
If no, Continue 

 2. 
chart to answer this question) 

Venison Trading 
1. 
trades his venison for fresh salmon.  

Do you ever exchange venison for something else? For example I have a friend who 

In general, what would you say is your main motivation for sharing the venison you 

Is sharing your venison an important activity to you? Why or Why not? 
Would you say sharing your venison has any sort of effect on the people you share it 

Sociocultural Value  
1. 
harvest?  
2. 
3. 
with? What kind of effect? 

Concerns and Limitations  
1. 
2. 
give them? 
3. 

Do you have any concerns about sharing venison with others? 
Have the people you shared with expressed any concerns about eating the venison you 

Do you feel there are any limitations in your ability to share venison with others? 

Wrap up 
1. Do you have any other questions, concerns, or comments relating to what we talked about 
today?  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 3.3: MICHIGAN BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE 

1.  With what race do you most strongly identify? 

  White, non-Hispanic 
  African American  
  Asian___________________________________ 
  Hispanic or Latino 
  Native American 
  Other __________________________________ 

2.  What is/are your profession(s)? 

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________ 

3.  Would you consider your current residence as Urban, Suburban, or Rural? 

  Urban:  means like a city, with houses close together and more concrete than 

grass and trees. 

  Suburban:  means in-between a city and rural environment.  House lots are single 

tract and spread out, and there is more grass and trees than concrete.  

  Rural:  means in a relatively undeveloped area where there are large areas of land 

separating houses and few roads. 

4.  How would you describe the area where you lived during most or all of your childhood?  

  Urban:  means like a city, with houses close together and more concrete than 

grass and trees. 

  Suburban:  means in-between a city and rural environment.  House lots are single 

tract and spread out, and there is more grass and trees than concrete.  

  Rural:  means in a relatively undeveloped area where there are large areas of land 

separating houses and few roads. 

5.  How many years have you lived in Michigan?  _______________ year(s) 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.  What is the highest level of education you have completed to date? 

  Less than High School Diploma 
  High School Diploma or GED 
  Trade or Vocational School 
  Some College 
  Associates Degree (2-year) 
  Bachelors Degree (4-year) 
  Graduate or Professional Degree 

7.  What is your annual household income? 

  $0 - $24,999 
  $25,000 – $49,999 
  $50,000 - $75,000 
  $75,000 – $99,999 
  $100,000 - $124,999 
  $125,000-$149,999 
  $150,000 or more 

8.  Are you a member of any hunting clubs or organizations?  

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________ 

9.  Any other comments you would like to share?  

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________ 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4: CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY WILDLIFE 
MEAT IN SWEDEN 

Abstract 

In Sweden, an estimated 16.7 million kilograms of wildlife meat are harvested annually, 

yet research on the use, distribution, and cultural value of this meat is limited. Hunters can sell 

the wildlife meat they harvest to private persons, food businesses (restaurants and stores), or 

game handling facilities (specialized processors for wildlife meat). Markets for wildlife meat add 

complexity to how wildlife meat is distributed and used in Sweden, while also providing the 

opportunity to examine how these markets affect its cultural importance. Thirty-two in-person 

interviews were conducted with Swedish hunters about their use of wildlife meat and how they 

distribute that meat within society. The hunters interviewed lived in urban and rural 

environments in northern (Vasterbötten county) and southern (Östergötlands and Södermanland 

counties) Sweden. Additionally, ethnographic field notes were taken while participating in 

hunting and hunting related activities, as well as exploring Swedish wildlife meat markets. 

Provisional, attribute, in vivo, and descriptive coding of interview transcripts and ethnographic 

field notes revealed that wildlife meat provides hunters with cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of social relations, identity, cultural heritage, education, knowledge systems, spiritual and 

religious, and recreation and tourism. Formal markets in wildlife meat appeared to have little 

effect on the ecosystem services that hunters received from wildlife meat, but spread the benefits 

from wildlife meat more broadly across society. The results of this study are intended to inform 

policy and management decisions by providing insight into how culture and markets affect the 

benefits derived from wildlife meat.  

Wildlife Meat  

Wildlife meat (also called game meat or bushmeat) refers to the muscle, viscera, skeleton, 

99 

 
 
 
and associated body tissues that are used for human consumption of free-ranging animals that are 

not cultivated, domesticated, or tamed (Food Law, 2000; Nasi et al., 2008; Stanford & Bunn, 

2001). Wildlife meat plays important economic, cultural, ecological, and nutritional roles in 

communities around the world (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012; Mainka & Trivedi, 2002). 

Comprised of lean protein and essential macronutrients, wildlife meat is a healthy food source 

that is also viewed as ethical and environmentally friendly (Corradini et la., 2022; Hoffman & 

Wiklund, 2006). However, the handling and consumption of wildlife meat can pose health risks 

from disease and contamination (Paulsen et al., 2014). Despite the large quantities of wildlife 

meat harvested around the world, research on the relationship between culture and wildlife 

consumption is lacking (Chausson et al, 2019; Nasi et al., 2011; Morsello et al., 2015). There is 

growing interest, however, in understanding the cultural importance of wildlife meat in diverse 

contexts (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Much of 

the current research on wildlife meat relates to its nutritional and economic importance in 

subsistence and indigenous communities; less is known about its use and cultural importance in 

other contexts (Alvard et al., 1997; Brashares et al., 2011; Davies & Brown, 2007; Gurven, 2004; 

Nasi et al., 2008; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011). 

During the 2010–2011 hunting season, an estimated 16.7 million kilograms (carcass 

weight) of wildlife meat was harvested by Swedish hunters (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). An 

estimated 20% of this harvest was sold on the market through game handling facilities 

(vilthanteringsanläggning), while the remaining 80% was used and distributed by hunters 

(Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). In a study of Swedish residents, Ljung et al. (2012) reported that 

65% of non-hunters consumed wildlife meat at least once per year. It was estimated in a follow-

up study that 62% of non-hunters from urban Stockholm consumed wildlife meat at least once 

100 

 
 
per year, whereas 81% of non-hunters in rural Northern Sweden consumed wildlife meat at least 

once per year (Ljung et al., 2015). These studies not only provide evidence that the distribution 

of wildlife meat extends beyond hunter households in Sweden, but also evidence of its cultural 

importance in the lives of hunters and those with whom they share. However, the authors of 

these studies also highlight that there is much more to learn about how Swedish hunters use and 

distribute the wildlife meat they harvest (Ljung et al., 2012; Ljung et al., 2015). 

Markets in Wildlife Meat  

A unique aspect of Swedish wildlife meat distribution is that it is not only legal to sell 

wildlife meat, but selling wildlife meat is encouraged by some organizations (Krantz, 2015). 

Hunters can sell small amounts of wildlife meat to private persons and food businesses, and 

unlimited quantities to game handling facilities (specialized processors for wildlife meat) 

(SNFA, 2007).  Under Swedish regulations, wildlife meat is quantified in units: one big game 

unit is equal to one moose, three red or fallow deer, or 10 roe deer, while one small game unit is 

equal to one small game animal (SNFA, 2007). A small amount is defined as 25 big game units 

or 10,000 small game units with the skin on; or 1 big game unit or 1,000 small game units 

butchered (without the skin on) (SNFA, 2007).  

What hunters consume in their own homes and share with other household members is 

not regulated (SNFA, 2007). In general, there is no inspection requirement for small quantities of 

wildlife meat sold to private persons; however, it is recommended (SNFA, 2007). Wildlife meat 

sold by a hunter directly to a local food business should be inspected (SNFA, 2007). Food 

businesses that sell wildlife meat directly from hunters need to be registered with their municipal 

government and must follow food safety standards for handling wildlife meat (SNFA, 2007). 

Currently, animals that commonly carry the disease Trichinella (e.g., bear, boar, beaver, etc.) 

101 

 
 
must go to a game handling facility, and should not be shared or sold beyond the household 

(SNFA, 2007). However, to increase the distribution of wild boar meat, these regulations are 

changing (SNFA, n.d.). Hunters are also responsible for ensuring they do not exceed the selling 

limits (SNFA, 2007). 

Wildlife meat markets are a controversial issue for conservationists and public health 

officials around the world (Bennet & Robinson, 2000, Geist, 1988; VerCauteren et al., 2011, 

Wegner et al., 2022). Unregulated markets in wildlife meat have been identified as a threat to 

wildlife populations, as economic incentives can drive excessive harvest (Alvard et al, 1997, 

Bennet & Robinson, 2000, Freese, 1997). Wildlife meat markets can also pose public health 

risks; for example, wildlife meat markets in China are thought to have been a potential vehicle 

for the transmission of SARS-CoV2 to humans, which has had devastating effects worldwide 

(Volpato et al., 2020). Swedish markets have measures in place to protect public health, as well 

as sale and harvest quotas to prevent the overharvesting of wildlife. Understanding the cultural 

importance of wildlife meat, and the effects of markets on its cultural value, can lead to informed 

public health policy and wildlife management decisions.  

Cultural Ecosystem Services  

Cultural ecosystem services are the non-tangible benefits people derive from natural 

systems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA], 2005).  More specifically, “cultural 

ecosystem services are the contributions ecosystems make to human wellbeing in terms of the 

identities they help frame, experiences they help enable, and the capabilities they help equip” 

(Fish et al., 2016, p. 212). Cultural ecosystem services can be further categorized as: recreation 

and tourism, aesthetic, bequest, intrinsic and existence, spiritual and religious, educational, 

knowledge systems, social relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, cultural diversity, 

102 

 
 
inspiration, and sense of place (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013; MEA, 2005; Milcu et al., 2013). 

In this chapter, I use the cultural ecosystem services framework to identify how wildlife meat 

contributes to culture. 

Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 provided evidence that wildlife meat provides various cultural 

ecosystem services in the form of social relations, cultural identity, cultural heritage, spiritual 

and religious, knowledge systems, education, sense of place, and recreation and tourism. 

Processing, sharing, and eating wildlife meat contributes to the creation and strengthening of 

social relations (Chausson et al, 2019; Omura, 2013; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Consuming 

wildlife meat is tied to the construction, performance, and maintenance of identity (Dizard, 2003; 

Dombrowski, 2007; East et al., 2005; Ngade et al., 2017; Omura, 2013; Searles, 2002). Activities 

related to the consumption and sharing of wildlife meat connect people to their cultural heritage 

(Condon et al., 1995; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Wildlife meat provides spiritual and religious 

cultural ecosystem services when used for religious, spiritual, or cultural ceremonies and rituals 

(Adeola, 1992; Aiyadurai et al., 2010; Neto et al., 2009; Omura, 2013; Titus et al., 2009; 

VanVliet et al., 2016). The knowledge and skills necessary for the identification, harvest, 

processing, preparation, and consumption of wildlife comprise a knowledge system that is built 

and maintained by engaging with others through wildlife meat (Kaltenborn et al., 2017; Kuhnlein 

& Receveur, 1996). Wildlife meat contributes to sense of place by providing connections to 

landscapes and contributes to people’s construction of place (Gombay, 2005; Watkin Lui et al., 

2016). Consuming wildlife meat is popular with tourists because it is considered both exotic and 

local, providing tourism cultural ecosystem services (Hoffman et al., 2003). Chapter 3 provided 

evidence that wildlife meat produces educational ecosystem services by creating opportunities to 

learn about ethics, hunting, and biology.  

103 

 
 
The ecosystem services framework enables a holistic assessment of the costs and benefits 

humans derive from ecosystems (Gee & Burkhard, 2010). Furthermore, it is a widely accepted 

formal framework to describe and categorize the complex connections between ecosystems and 

society (Daniel et al., 2012). Prior research (Chapters 2 and 3) has demonstrated the utility of the 

cultural ecosystem services to identify the cultural value of wildlife meat. European Union 

governments, including Sweden, use the ecosystem services framework for policy development 

and assessment, as the integration of ecosystem services into governance is essential to 

maintaining benefits for current and future generations (Grima et al, 2019; Hansen & Malmaeus, 

2016). Knowing the cultural ecosystems services an ecosystem is providing enables decision 

makers to address the increased demand for cultural considerations in management (Satterfield et 

al., 2013). Recognition of cultural ecosystem services during decision-making can lead to 

increased sustainability (Plieninger et al., 2015).  

The Current Study  

My aim is to characterize how wildlife meat contributes to culture by identifying the 

cultural ecosystem services it provides, and to explore if placing an economic value on wildlife 

meat through regulated markets affects these cultural ecosystem services. To that end, I 

conducted ethnographic field research and in-depth in-person interviews with large ungulate 

hunters in northern and southern Sweden, regarding their behaviors around wildlife meat. 

Sweden is an ideal location for exploring the intersection of regulated markets for wildlife meat 

and the cultural importance of wildlife meat. These results are intended to inform policy and 

management decisions by providing insight into how culture effects consumption and if markets 

impact the benefits derived from wildlife meat.  

104 

 
 
 
Location, People, and Wildlife  

Methods 

Sweden, located in northern Europe, is home to 10.6 million people who reside in a 

myriad of ecological, social, economic, and residential environments that provide a diversity of 

settings for inquiry (Statistics Sweden, 2023). There are approximately 300,000 hunters in 

Sweden—3% of the total population (Boman & Mattson, 2012). Additionally, hunters make up a 

greater proportion of the population in northern and rural parts of the country, compared to the 

southern and urban parts (Boman & Mattson, 2012). Hunting plays a key role in wildlife 

management, specifically limiting economic losses to forestry and agriculture, and wildlife 

vehicle collisions (Lavsund et al, 2003; Lindqvist et al., 2014; Mattson et al., 2014).  

Sweden has five large ungulate species: moose (Alces alces), the most widespread and 

popular game species; red deer (Cervus elaphus), also known as the European elk; fallow deer 

(Dama dama), introduced from Asia; roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), the smallest and most 

common native deer species in southern Sweden; and wild boar (Sus scrofa), which was 

reintroduced after extirpation (Bergström et al., 1992; Lindqvist et al., 2014; SJ, n.d.). During the 

2010–2011 hunting season, an estimated 16.1 million kilograms (carcass weight) of wildlife 

meat from these five ungulate species were harvested by Swedish hunters (Table 4.1). Wildlife 

meat harvested from Swedish ecosystems provides opportunities for hunters to share and sell 

wildlife meat, creating a vibrant environment in which to conduct this study.  

Approach  

To assess the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat in Sweden, I used a 

qualitative approach. Qualitative methods are the best way to identify cultural ecosystem 

services, as these systematic inquiries enable in-depth insights about unknown and complex 

105 

 
 
 
social phenomena (Satterfield et al, 2013; Sullivan & Sargeant, 2011; Teherani et al., 2015). This 

chapter uses an almost identical approaches and analysis methods to Chapter 3. The one addition 

is the use of ethnographic field notes in conjunction with interviews.  Nevertheless, interviews 

remain the main source of data for analyses. Interviews encourage participants to freely talk in 

their own words, enabling the capture of difficult-to-express concepts (Scholte et al., 2015). 

Ethnographic field notes were used to fill gaps in interview data. 

Interviews  

Participant Selection  

 Interviews were conducted in both northern and southern Sweden due to potentially 

different sharing environments based on quantity of meat harvested, species hunted, hunting 

methods, land use, and access to markets. In northern Sweden, there is one main ungulate species 

to hunt (moose), whereas in southern Sweden, all five ungulate species are present (moose, red 

deer, fallow deer, roe deer, and wild boar). Interviews were conducted in both urban and non-

urban areas. Sweden has 21 counties (län) that are divided up into 290 municipalities (kommun). 

In the northern study site (Vasterbötten county), interviews were conducted with hunters living 

in Umeå (urban) and Bjurholm, Vindeln, and Robertsfors (non-urban) municipalities (Figure 

4.1). Interviews in the southern study site were conducted with hunters from Norrköping (urban; 

Östergötlands county), Katrineholm, Gnesta, and Flen municipalities (non-urban; Södermanland 

county). The urban municipalities of Umeå and Norrköping have a similar population size.  

All hunters in Sweden must register and pay an annual fee for a hunting license (SEPA, 

n.d.). The names and contact information of participants were accessed from the Swedish 

hunting license register. A random sample of hunters over the age of 18 was selected from this 

register using zip codes associated with the eight chosen municipalities. Only those who hunted 

106 

 
 
 
moose, red deer, fallow deer, wild boar, or roe deer in Sweden during the 2015–2016 hunting 

season and who harvested, or were part of a team that harvested, at least one of these species 

during the 2015–2016 hunting season were considered. A maximum variation approach was used 

to select participants based on the available information from the hunting license register: age 

and location (urban/non-urban) (Patton, 1990). To appropriately stage interviews and seek 

maximum variation, potential interviewees were divided into 4 different groups: North Urban 

(Umeå), North Non-urban (Bjurholm, Vindeln, Robertsfors), South Urban (Norrköping), and 

South Non-urban (Katrineholm, Gnesta, and Flen). Maximum variation within each group was 

sought based on age (50:50 split of ages greater than and less than the average age of Swedish 

hunters) and gender (one female greater than and one less than the average age).  

Data Collection 

Interviews were conducted in April and May of 2016.  Postcards describing the purpose 

of the study and providing contact information were sent out to solicit interviewees (Appendix 

4.1). The contact method was later switched to postcards in an envelope, and then formal letters 

with a SLU (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet) letterhead enclosed in an envelope (Appendix 4.2).  

Mailings were staggered in order to keep inquiries manageable and interviews within reasonable 

geographic distance. If a hunter did not respond to the postcard/letter via phone (call or text) or 

email within two weeks, a second postcard/letter was sent with an additional hand-written note 

discussing the importance of their participation. It was assumed that requiring individuals to call 

and schedule an interview provided rich informants and it enabled the researcher to double check 

their qualifications for inclusion in the study (Patton, 1990).  By the completion of interviews no 

novel concepts and themes emerged. Researching this point of saturation indicates that the 

interviews conducted captured the diversity, depth and nuances of wildlife meat use and 

107 

 
 
distribution in Sweden (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022).  

If a hunter contacted the researcher, met the qualifications for inclusion in the study, and 

wished to participate in an in-person interview, a time was arranged to meet and conduct the 

interview in a location of their choice. When possible, interviews were conducted in public 

locations; however physical limitations, schedules, childcare needs, and the location of some 

residences required some interviews be conducted at the hunter’s home. Audio recordings of all 

interviews were made with the permission of participants to improve the accuracy of data 

collection. Many Swedes can speak English; however, to ensure the accuracy of information and 

participant comfort, all interviews were conducted in Swedish by a native Swedish speaker. The 

interviewer also translated and transcribed interviews from Swedish to English. All English 

transcripts were then reviewed by a native English speaker to ensure the accuracy of translations 

and minimize any error in analysis.  

Interview Instrument 

The interview questions from Chapter 3 were modified to fit a Swedish context. These 

modified questions were further developed and translated with the input of experts and native 

Swedish speakers. To ensure correct translations, interview questions were back translated 

between English and Swedish several times and piloted with Swedish hunters to ensure the 

validity and reliability of responses (Brislin, 1970; Vaske, 2008).  

Interviews were divided into two parts: 1) semi-structured open-ended questions 

(Appendix 4.3 & Appendix 4.4); and 2) a short survey consisting of closed and open-ended 

questions to ascertain demographic information not collected by the Swedish hunting license 

register (Appendix 4.5 & Appendix 4.6). The interview began with general questions about the 

interviewee’s participation in hunting to help build rapport and to ease into more difficult lines of 

108 

 
 
inquiry. Questions were then asked about the hunter’s participation in hunting team(s), including 

information about the number of teams they are a member of, general information about each 

team (number of people, location of hunting lease, type of lease, how long they have been a 

team), the species the team hunts for, the 2015/2016 team harvest, and how the team processes 

and distributes the wildlife meat they harvest. Hunters were then asked about their own hunting 

behavior, including any additional independent harvests, their motivations for hunting, other 

sources of wildlife meat for the household, household wildlife meat consumption patterns, the 

role of wildlife meat in their diet, wildlife meat distribution behaviors and reasons for these 

decisions, other sources of wildlife meat, the importance of sharing/selling wildlife meat, and 

any concerns about distributing or consuming wildlife meat. After the interview was completed, 

a short background questionnaire was administered to provide demographic information about 

the hunter not provided by the Swedish hunting license register. 

Ethnographic Field Notes  

Taking ethnographic field notes requires entering a setting and engaging in firsthand 

participation while observing (Emerson et al., 2011). I participated in ungulate hunts in the north 

and south of Sweden to gain more context about how Swedes hunt and use wildlife meat. During 

hunts, I sat with shooters waiting for game to pass or went walking with dog handlers who were 

driving the game. I went hunting with teams, individuals, and on large estates. I was present 

when an animal was shot and participated in field dressing, removing wildlife from the forest, 

and processing the meat. I also went to grocery stores, slaughterhouses, butchers, markets, game 

meat handling establishments, and farm shops to explore how wildlife meat was sold and 

distributed. I had conversations with county officials, employees of Svenska Jägareförbundet, 

and other researchers about wildlife meat in Sweden. I took contemporaneous notes (jottings) 

109 

 
 
 
during these interactions and later recorded more detailed systematic notes about observations, 

what I learned while participating in these events, and through discussions (Emerson et al., 

2011). These detailed field notes were descriptive, context sensitive, and locally informed, while 

being mindful of lens and researcher bias (Emerson et al., 2011). 

Analyses 

Both interview transcripts and ethnographic field notes were analyzed using the same 

methods from Chapter 3. The codebook from Chapter 3, which was developed using provisional, 

descriptive, in vivo, and attribute coding, was used as a starting point for coding Swedish 

interviews (Saldaña, 2016). All interviews were analyzed using MAXQDA, a computer-assisted 

qualitative analysis software. Coding was an iterative and multistep cyclical process, where sub 

codes were revised, modified, deleted, or expanded throughout analysis to adjust the initial 

codebook to differences between Michigan and Swedish hunters (Saldaña, 2016). I let the 

hunters speak for themselves whenever possible. If a theme was present in both field notes and 

interviews, I prioritized using interview transcripts, only relying on field notes to fill in themes 

not present or well-articulated in interviews. 

Results 

Description of Hunters Interviewed 

Thirty-two hunters were interviewed, 16 from the northern study site and 16 from the 

southern study site. An equal number of interviewees resided in urban (10,000–199,000 

inhabitants) and non-urban communities (the countryside, fewer than 200 inhabitants) across 

both study sites. A majority (n = 25) of the hunters interviewed were male. The mean age of 

interviewees was 54 years old (range 20–81 years). Hunters reported the following highest levels 

of education: Obligatorisk skola, or obligatory school, approximately 0–9 years of schooling (n = 

110 

 
 
 
 
2); Yrkesutbildning, or vocational training (n = 2); Gymnasieutbildning, or upper secondary 

school/high school, approximately 10–12 years of schooling (n = 10); and Universitet eller 

högskoleutbildning, or university/college education, approximately 13+ years of schooling (n = 

18). Reported annual household income after taxes was categorized as $11,000–$33,000 USD (n 

= 11), $33,000–$55,000 USD (n = 13), and $55,000+ USD (n = 8). Hunters reported harvesting a 

wide array of wildlife species and engaging in a variety of consumption and sharing behaviors, 

although all hunters ate at least some wildlife meat and shared it with at least one other person.  

Cultural Ecosystem Services  

I found evidence of wildlife meat providing cultural ecosystem services in the form of 

social relations, identity, cultural heritage, education, knowledge systems, spiritual and religious, 

and recreation and tourism (Table 4.2). There was no evidence of wildlife meat providing 

cultural ecosystem services in the form of aesthetic, cultural diversity, bequest, intrinsic, and 

existence, sense of place, or inspiration. 

Social Relations 

Processing, cooking, sharing, and eating wildlife meat provided opportunities to create, maintain, 

and strengthen relationships. This was the most ubiquitous cultural ecosystem service provided 

by wildlife meat. The value that hunters placed on wildlife meat plays an important role in how 

wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services in the form of social relations. Hunters 

identified wildlife meat as something special, and because of this designation, sharing it with 

others emphasized the importance of these relationships. Hunter 88 described what made wildlife 

meat special: 

“I feel like it is something special to eat and share, like, this is from the hunting team. It’s 

fun that it is, not just the food but everything that comes along with it …  

111 

 
 
 
[I am] sharing the joy that comes from hunting. I’m not thinking that you give away a 

piece of meat, but you give away a piece of hunting.” 

For Hunter 88, wildlife meat was special because it symbolized the process involved in obtaining 

it, which was important to them. Hunter 90 described how the process of obtaining wildlife meat 

embedded it with meaning: 

“It is part of the whole hunting experience, from clearing stands and getting up in the 

tower and waiting for the animals, or helping the drive and waiting for the animals, and 

when you have cooked it and are sitting down to eat it, it's the whole experience. It's for 

the sake of hunting to eat this meat, for it to have meaning and purpose.” 

Wildlife meat became a symbol of all the actions and experiences that were part of 

procuring it. Consuming meat was the culmination of these experiences and was what gave 

hunting meaning for Hunter 90. Hunter 70 had a slightly different take on why wildlife meat was 

special. Hunter 70 identified that the experience of obtaining the meat was what made it special, 

because it developed respect for what you were eating. 

“I also believe that when you are the one hunting and handling the meat, is the one who 

stands there a very long night, and will cut it up into fine pieces, then you get a different 

kind of respect for what you eat. And you understand that it's an animal, I killed an 

animal, I then eat, it brings a respect for what you actually eat.” 

Hunters also mentioned that the limited access to wildlife meat made it special. The people they 

shared meat with found it special because they could not easily access it themselves. Those they 

shared wildlife meat with described it as “rare” and “exotic”. Hunter 70 described their 

perspective on why access to wildlife meat was limited: 

“The others do not have access to it. You must really take that into account. Those who 

112 

 
 
hunt have land, it is not something you acquire in a jiff … [and] it costs a lot to buy a 

hunting lease ... Or pay into a hunting party, or to be invited. So it is pretty tight premises, 

one can have access to meat, and therefore it is fair and nice to share it.” 

To access wildlife meat through hunting, a person must be able to afford to do so, able to find a 

place to hunt, and able to find a team to hunt with, especially for moose. Although wildlife meat 

could be purchased at a store, it was easier to obtain if you knew a hunter who would share or 

sell it, because most wildlife meat remained with hunters. As Hunter 80 described, it was not 

always easy to find meat in the store, nor was it affordable. 

“It's good. It is fantastic. There are many who never at all would get to eat it, if you are 

not invited to it. In the stores you hardly find it. It's some large estate that sells. But often 

it is so expensive that people hesitate to buy it. So of course I want to share, that's what I 

can share.” 

Sharing wildlife meat was repeatedly identified as an important aspect of hunting. As 

Hunter 70 described, “But one thinks of the social aspect, to barbecue together and eat something 

you have cooked together, then it's really important, to cook together and then eat it, which is 

delicious.” For Hunter 70, cooking and eating wildlife meat was integral to the process of 

hunting and brought them closer to others. But to Hunter 67, sharing wildlife meat was a more 

fundamental part of being human: “I think that's something one is bred with, to give, to share, for 

it has always been and so much good comes from it. You get so much back.”  

For Hunter 67, not only was sharing fundamental, but they felt they got a lot in return 

from others for sharing their wildlife meat. For Hunter 89, sharing wildlife meat was a way to 

show others that they cared for them and appreciated them: “I want to show an appreciation from 

my side to whoever I give to. That's the main purpose, for me at least.” Sharing wildlife meat 

113 

 
 
 
played an important role in how hunters built and maintained social relationships.  

Wildlife meat was shared judiciously by hunters. Hunters discussed carefully considering 

who would receive their wildlife meat, using terms like “closest circle”, “very tight 

relationships”, or “those who are closest to me” to describe who received their meat. As Hunter 

89 explained: “First and foremost, it is the loved ones you have in your immediate perimeter.”  

Hunter 77 provided more detail:  

“It is important, in fact, for it is not like anything else. For me, it is mine, my efforts, both 

in time and money, which is quite close to my heart. I guess I'm pretty selective with who 

I give it away to. There are people that you, this sounds really corny, but people you feel 

something more special for, with whom you want to share with, and who are known to 

appreciate it.” 

Hunters most often shared their wildlife meat with family or close friends. When Hunter 

80’s kids came by once a week, “it [was] always game on the menu”. Hunter 81 gave their 

grandchildren wildlife meat as a Christmas present, which prompted further conversations on 

how to properly cook the meat, and then later, stories from the grandchildren of how they 

prepared and shared it. Hunter 80 described sharing wildlife meat with their parents: “We are so 

tight in our family, Mom and Dad have had game meat their whole life, and if they run out, I 

want to share with them, so it is within the family.” Hunter 76 similarly shared wildlife meat 

with their in-laws: “My mother-in-law. She is 86 years old. She is delighted to receive all bones 

and other meat as well, of course. Her moose-meat-soup with dumplings (klimp) is not a joke! It 

is a culinary delicacy!” Hunters considered wildlife meat special and gave it to those they 

considered special as well; this distinction emphasized the importance of that relationship, thus 

maintaining and strengthening it. 

114 

 
 
 
Wildlife meat was also used to assist others, particularly helping family members lower 

food costs. When discussing providing wildlife meat to family members who did not live in their 

household, Hunter 73 stated, “It is nice to contribute to their lower household costs.”. Hunter 87 

felt similarly: 

“I feel some responsibility to provide for Mom now. And my sister is, she does not hunt, 

but she has family and then I think she may have a better use of it than what I need. I am 

on dry land so to speak. I don't need it, I have a surplus.” 

Since Hunter 87 had a surplus, they believed they should provide meat to those in their family 

that could benefit. This view was shared by Hunter 82, who also had a surplus: 

“Yes, I get more than I need and the ones I give to in this situation, they need it really. I 

have a better economy than them. So I could never imagine not doing it. But it should be 

to those who really need and not to, and I could not think of selling to anyone private, 

then I rather give to someone who needs it.” 

Hunters also described providing wildlife meat to hunters who were no longer able to 

harvest their own meat. Hunter 91 described giving wildlife meat to a neighbor who was no 

longer able to hunt: “He was a hunter but for various reasons had to stop, so he is happy when 

they get a piece of meat. They are so grateful.” 

Some hunters offered wildlife meat to say thank you or demonstrate reciprocity. For 

example, Hunter 69 used wildlife meat to pay or thank others for work done around their home: 

“I occasionally give a piece of meat to someone as thanks, if you've had help with something.” 

Hunter 69 even used wildlife meat to get electrical work done: “One person who was here on a 

hunt, he wondered if he could take a boar, in exchange, he did electrical work. He is an 

electrician so I said absolutely, it was a good deal for me.”  On another occasion, they used 

115 

 
 
 
 
wildlife meat to thank the workers who renovated their floors: “I had a few people that helped 

me with the floors so they received a smoked roe deer shoulder. More of a thanks than payment, 

I paid too, but they were nice and showed up on short notice.” Hunter 91 similarly used wildlife 

meat to thank a neighbor for watching their home while they were away: “The neighbor straight 

across the road, we help each other. When we go away, he looks out for the house. So then he 

usually gets some as a thank you, a nice piece of meat.” Likewise, Hunter 76 described using 

wildlife meat to thank their parents for favors: “With my mother and father we do each other 

favors, back and forth. I have a good supply of meat and they help us with the kids and things 

like this … And it works quite well that they get meat.” 

In Sweden, it is customary to bring a gift for the host when you are invited to someone’s 

home. Some hunters fulfilled this important social custom using wildlife meat. Instead of the 

traditional flowers or bottle of wine, hunters discussed gifting a good quality piece of meat. 

Because wildlife meat is considered special, Hunter 81 described that it made a great host gift.  

“I’m a little proud that I have a really nice product that I can share with others … We are 

often invited to peoples homes, and every time to go and buy a bunch of flowers or some 

damn thing, then we see that it is much more appreciated to bring a steak or ground 

meat.” 

Wildlife meat was used to celebrate non-religious holidays or special events such as birthdays or 

weddings, emphasizing its heightened importance and special nature. For example, Hunter 65 

celebrated the New Year by smoking moose meat with a friend to make a traditional Swedish 

dish: “This New Year’s we did moose souvas. My friend built a place to smoke meat in at his 

house. So we made moose souvas and it was really good.” Hunter 75 described using wildlife 

meat to make all the meat dishes for their daughter’s wedding, while Hunter 81 provided a whole 

116 

 
 
 
wild boar for a wedding that served barbeque. One hunting team donated meat to their local 

village’s annual community dinner. Hunter 70 described saving the best pieces of meat to 

celebrate someone’s birthday: 

“Yes, they [the fillets] are the most tender pieces. We eat them, so far, at the finest 

occasions when it’s someone's birthday, and then we did as good as we could, with 

fallow deer fillet and home-made red wine sauce, you know, really made an effort.” 

While all interviewees hunted as part of a hunting team, some also hunted individually for 

certain species. Most of the meat, however, was harvested in a team setting. Transporting the 

harvested meat out of the forest, then processing and dividing it up to be taken home was a team 

effort that provided many opportunities to build and strengthen the social relations between team 

members. As Hunter 68 expressed: “I think that there has always been an interest, based on 

solidarity, to help.  What you do in the forest are one part, but then the work continues, until we 

have divided the meat.” Hunter 63 elaborated on the team effort following an animal’s retrieval 

from the forest: 

“And so, off to the slaughterhouse, and then skin it there, hanging it up there. We do the 

job together! I would not be able to take care of an entire moose myself. Not a chance … 

We help each other to cut up, everyone helps and you do the thing you can do best.” 

The processing facilities used by hunters varied widely. Some used a shed or a team 

member’s garage, while others had state of the art slaughterhouses kept to the perfect 

temperature with running water and sanitary stainless-steel tables. Regardless of the facilities, 

processing an animal often provided an opportunity to engage with other members of the team. 

One hunter showed the interviewer their slaughterhouse equipped with a barbeque outside so 

they could cook up some of the fresh meat from the hunt while they were still processing the 

117 

 
 
harvest. Multiple other hunters discussed adding a fika room to their slaughterhouses so their 

teams could partake in fika (a Swedish coffee break for socializing) while processing animals. 

Hunters described how the hunting team would get together over a meal made from the 

wildlife meat they harvested. One team had a tradition of getting together for kidney pie every 

year, while others hosted potluck dinners made from wildlife meat. Hunter 87 described how 

they started a tradition of making soup from wildlife bones for their team: “Two or three years 

ago I started to invite the whole team for meat soup. I said, "Save bones and I'll cook soup". So 

now it has become a thing. I invite the whole team for meat soup”. Sharing wildlife meat even 

occurred during the hunt. I witnessed a boiled moose nose being passed around amongst team 

members during a coffee break on a moose hunt in northern Sweden. People took a slice off with 

a knife and passed the nose along; everyone who wanted some took a piece. Sausages and other 

portable snacks made from wildlife meat often accompanied hunts. 

In Sweden, hunting for ungulates frequently involved the use of dogs to drive game. 

Dogs and their handlers were therefore pivotal to the hunt, and often benefited from increased 

social standing within a hunting team. Dog handlers were often provided with special parts of the 

harvested animal to emphasize their importance and thank them for their efforts. They frequently 

received wildlife meat or pieces of the animal to feed the dogs or use for training purposes. 

Hunter 82 described the special treatment received by dog handlers on their team: “And here we 

have a system that the first calf that is shot, or calves, depending on how many dog handlers 

there are, go to the dog handlers”. Some hunting teams presented the heart (a very special piece) 

to the dog handler, rather than the shooter, as is traditional. Hunter 79’s team even included dogs 

in their processing: “And everything that we cut off that we deem is suitable for dog food, we 

gather in a special pile and mince it for the dog.” Hunter 81 usually got enough meat from the 

118 

 
 
 
team’s harvest to make and store an entire year’s worth of dog food: “All the other viscera … I 

take care of and cut and then we cook dog food once a year so that there is enough for a year. 

There will be about 150-170 kg per year.” 

Identity 

Processing, sharing, and eating wildlife meat played a role in the formation or thickening 

of personal identity (individual goals, values, or beliefs) and social identity (definition of self in 

relation to others, including cultural identity) (Schwartz et al., 2006). One way wildlife meat 

contributed to hunters’ identities was through self-fulfillment. Wildlife meat enabled hunters to 

enact and fulfill their personal identity by achieving their ambitions, capabilities, and desires 

through their efforts related to the harvest, sharing, and consumption of wildlife meat. Hunters 

talked about how providing wildlife meat made them feel good, great, right, satisfied, cozy 

(mysig), and proud. For example, Hunter 61 said, “It feels good to be able to give a little bit of 

something that is so good and so useful to those who cannot get it.” Hunter 62 expressed a 

similar sentiment: “It feels great to be able to bring home fine meat that you know where it 

comes from.”  

Often, these sentiments were tied to expressions of self-sufficiency or self-reliance. 

Hunter 78 expressed self-fulfillment because they harvested and processed the wildlife meat they 

shared: “I think it's satisfying to give it to someone else, because I shot it myself and took care of 

it myself. I like to give away stuff like that”. Hunter 62 made a similar connection: “It is 

precisely that it is wild game meat that you yourself have hunted, it is satisfying retrieving your 

own food.” Hunter 65 described feeling fulfilled by being self-reliant and not needing to depend 

on the supermarket. 

“I like to hunt it. It is connected. It feels good to actually eat the meat you hunt. That is 

119 

 
 
 
why I hunt. I don’t just want to go out and shoot, you want to bring something home as 

well. It feels good to not be dependent on ICA (Supermarket chain) and to buy.” 

For Hunter 77, a woman, their feeling of fulfillment from harvesting their own food from forest 

to table intersected with gender and defying gender stereotypes. 

“It’s a pride in that, once again, to know where it comes from, and that you have 

harvested it yourself. There are often discussions about the hunt and so on around the 

dinner table as well, it is impressive that it is I who have done it and not my husband... I 

feel a pride in the hunt, in being a member.” 

For some hunters, consuming wildlife meat was tied to national identity. Hunters 

described wildlife meat as Swedish and connected consuming wildlife meat to being Swedish. 

Hunters expressed a preference for wildlife meat because it was a “Swedish meat”. Hunter 86 

liked eating wildlife meat because it helped them “take advantage of our Swedish meats.” For 

Hunter 88, who hailed from northern Sweden (Norrland), moose meat was tied to their regional 

identity. Here, they described giving meat to their Swedish friends to share with their non-

Swedish girlfriends: 

“I have friends in my class who are from Stockholm and they can’t even spell moose. So 

a couple of them have gotten it straight into their hands, especially when their girlfriends 

come, they have to represent Norrland in some way.” 

 To this hunter, moose meat represented Norrland and provided a connection to their 

identity as a resident of both Norrland and Sweden. 

Cultural Heritage 

Wildlife meat was a physical part of the natural world that served as a totem for traditions 

and ways of life passed down through generations. Hunters identified several traditions that were 

120 

 
 
built and passed on through the sharing and consumption of wildlife meat. Many hunters 

referenced the tradition of giving the heart of an animal to the person who shot it. Hunters 

described the heart as “something special”, “a delicacy”, or “a reward” for the shooter, and 

giving the heart to the shooter was an “old custom”, “tradition”, or “how it has always been”. 

Hunter 85 described it like so: “It's something historic. It's something that, I've been hunting 

there for quite a few years, I started at other places, but it has probably always been so.” 

Hunters also mentioned preparing traditional Swedish dishes made with wildlife meat. A 

particularly popular dish was haggis. In Sweden, haggis was traditionally made from wildlife 

meat by grinding the marrow in bones and the meat that was attached to those bones. Hunter 85 

enjoyed making haggis for their grandchildren: 

“We do have some small grandchildren in [location name removed]. They love that 

haggis. There's a lot to do, but I have time to do it, before you have cleaned everything, 

it's much boiling and then, but you have the most delicious taste.” 

 In addition to honoring old culinary traditions, some hunters started new traditions 

involving wildlife meat. Like Hunter 79: “It has almost become a tradition, it is the third year we 

live here now. The two last autumns, we have made sausages with all the neighbors”. 

Hunters discussed sharing and consuming wildlife meat as part of their way of life. For 

some, sharing wildlife meat wasn’t something they often thought about because it was “routine”. 

As Hunter 66 expressed: “It is quite natural in these old communities to share a steak if one has 

it.” Many hunters considered wildlife meat a staple food, or something that had always been a 

part of their diet, like Hunter 74: “It [Wildlife meat] is the staple food and so it has been since I 

was very small”. Hunter 87 expressed a similar sentiment: 

“But it is precisely this, it is my upbringing, it's tradition, it's what I know, it's food for 

121 

 
 
the winter … I think it's very much of it this way I was brought up. Moose meat was food 

on the table for the winter.” 

Wildlife meat was not only something hunters had grown up on, but something they were 

raising their children on too. Hunter 73 said it best: “my children … are born and bred on wild 

game meat, I’ve always hunted”. For Hunter 68, harvesting and consuming wildlife meat was not 

only tied to their upbringing, but part of connecting to humanity’s distant past: “I think it is 

important to take part of the cultural heritage, that is what we have done the most time on this 

earth, hunted and fished.” 

Education  

Processing, sharing, and eating wildlife meat provided a basis for formal and informal 

education about biology, hunting, and wildlife management. Hunters mentioned using wildlife 

meat to educate others about hunting and wildlife management. Hunter 63 viewed sharing as a 

way of introducing others to the benefits of wildlife meat: “I would like to do a bit of advertising 

for the moose meat.” To Hunter 68, sharing wildlife meat was a way to start discussions about 

the benefits of wildlife meat and the role of hunting in wildlife management: “Above all you 

have a dialogue about the meat when you eat it. Talk about where it comes from and what a 

resource game really is, so there will be a greater awareness.” For Hunter 88, wildlife meat was 

not only a symbol of the hunt, but a way to educate others about where our food comes from. 

“Sharing the joy that comes from hunting. I’m not thinking that you give away a piece of 

meat, but you give away a piece of hunting. For people from the south who don’t know 

anything about this, it actually becomes a piece of meat and to highlight that what you 

buy at ICA [Supermarket chain] does not grow on trees, it is an actual animal lying 

there.” 

122 

 
 
While participating in a moose hunt in northern Sweden, I observed children learning 

about the anatomy of moose when a carcass was brought to the local barn for processing. When 

the hunting team arrived with the moose, their family members were waiting to see the day’s 

harvest and help with processing. The moose was raised using a tractor and the adults began to 

break down the carcass into smaller, more manageable pieces. A group of children gathered to 

inspect the moose’s head and teeth. This became an opportunity to discuss how moose and 

human teeth were shaped differently and how this related to what moose eat. 

Knowledge Systems  

The knowledge required to process and prepare wildlife meat for consumption 

encompasses a knowledge system. By engaging in these activities, hunters are constantly 

building knowledge themselves and sharing this knowledge with others. Categories of cultural 

ecosystem services overlap and intertwine (Gee & Burkhard, 2010; Pröpper & Haupts, 2014; 

Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). Some of the ways in which wildlife meat contributes to 

knowledge systems were already described in the sections on cultural heritage and education. 

Processing and preparing wildlife meat for consumption were where Swedish hunters most often 

described building knowledge around wildlife meat. 

Some of the knowledge systems surrounding wildlife meat were created in more formal 

educational settings. Swedish hunters must take a course to receive a hunting license, part of 

which covers the processing of wildlife meat. Additional courses with more detailed training on 

processing were available, as well as courses to become a game investigator (viltundersökare), 

individuals trained to inspect wildlife meat for disease and contamination before it is sold to a 

game handling facility (SNFA, 2007). If hunters had not taken a course themselves, there were 

often other team members who had. Trained hunters generally managed the processing, while 

123 

 
 
teaching other team members the proper hygiene for handling meat.   

“There are so many talented guys around here, if you end up with any of them you’ll 

learn quickly. There are many good people here to learn from… You learn pretty fast 

how to take care of the bodies. I personally would like to take a butchering course, for 

example, and learn from a pro.” (Hunter 78) 

A key component of the knowledge system for processing wildlife meat was the concept 

of 40-degree days (dygnsgrader), a process used to age meat. For example, if the average 

temperature every day in a given week was 8C, the meat should hang for 5 days, totaling 40C. 

Temperatures in a cooling room or meat locker can be regulated, but some teams did not have 

access to such facilities, which meant letting their harvest hang in a barn or shed, exposed to 

daily temperature fluctuations. Some hunters preferred to let their meat hang a little longer, for 

60-degree days. Dygnsgrader was also about flavor. It was not only important to hunters that 

meat was hygienic, but also that it tasted good. In recent years, Hunter 68’s team has started to 

focus on the quality of the meat: 

“It's often the case that there is one or a few that have a little more knowledge, but then I 

think probably most people want to be involved and learn. There is a craft in itself, we've 

gotten more knowledgeable in recent years, the importance of the different phases, what 

significance it has for meat tenderness and durability and so on. There is quite a lot to 

take part in.” 

Although courses and training were available, hunters often discussed learning about 

processing wildlife meat from other knowledgeable members of their family or team. Hunter 85 

described it like this: “Those who have hunted there for forty years, they have learned. You stand 

there and look, that is the way you learn.” Hunter 88 detailed the experience of a team member 

124 

 
 
 
 
who was interested in learning how to process wildlife meat and sought out more experienced 

hunters from whom they could learn: 

“We have one [a team member] who is, he is 45 maybe, and he does not work as a chef 

or anything, and he has lived there [near hunting ground] his whole life and he learned by 

his own interest, followed other hunting teams, especially when he was younger.” 

Learning to prepare wildlife meat was another way knowledge systems were built from 

wildlife meat. Hunter 80 recounted the process of slowly learning how to properly prepare 

wildlife meat: “So it has been for many years with trial and error to find a way to cook to suit me 

and learn how to do different things.” Not only did Hunter 64 learn how to cook wildlife meat, 

but having wildlife meat in the house taught them how to cook in general: “It has meant, 

concerning the meat, that I have had to learn how to cook. I couldn't before.” Hunter 62 

described how knowledge about preparing wildlife meat was unique and different from preparing 

grocery-bought meat. 

“Before I ate wild game meat once every two years and could not say much about it 

either. And now I have learned a lot more, and you can discover new dishes. Since the 

meat is a little different than the meat that can be bought in the store, other recipes are 

required, some other recipes or cooking methods because it is pretty low fat. Then also 

when you get all the different parts of an animal, you are encouraged to cook different 

kinds of dishes.  What is suitable for a steak or a fillet, it is quite different. And at ICA 

[Supermarket chain] there are not so many varieties to choose from.” 

Learning to prepare wildlife meat gave hunters the opportunity to learn from others and 

create their own recipes. Hunter 92 learned how to prepare wild boar, a meat newer to Sweden 

but prominent in Germany, from other members of their hunting team: “Then I have received 

125 

 
 
 
 
information from the German housewives [wives of hunting team members] how to cook it, and 

then I made it my way too. A mix of recipes.” For Hunter 88, learning to prepare wildlife meat 

was an opportunity to learn family recipes that had been passed down by older generations. (This 

could also be considered cultural heritage cultural ecosystem services).  

“The relatives that came from [where they hunt], this is what they ate, it is the same 

recipes. Stews and soup, and how to cook the less fine parts I’ve become interested in. It 

is popular with filets and the nicer parts, but if you get a fransyska what do you do with 

it? Then you have to ask grandma right away. My uncle might know since he is a chef, 

but grandma knows a lot about this stuff.” 

Spiritual and Religious 

Wildlife meat was used to celebrate religious holidays like Christmas and Easter, usually 

in the form of traditional holiday meals. Hunter 88 used wildlife meat to make a traditional 

Christmas dish called tjälknöl (frozen moose slowly roasted for a long time at a low temperature 

and then set in a brine), while Hunter 64 made meatballs from minced meat (ground wildlife 

meat mixed with spices and fruit) every year with their daughter to celebrate Christmas and 

Easter.  

Wildlife meat was also given as a present to celebrate religious holidays. Hunter 67 gave 

wildlife meat as Christmas gifts because “I would much rather give a nice steak for Christmas 

than anything else you've bought in the store, which they will of course not be grateful for.” 

Hunter 77 expressed a similar sentiment: It can be fun to bring a piece of meat as a Christmas 

present or something like that, to someone who appreciates it.” Hunter 69 indicated that they 

enjoyed smoking wildlife meat and gave away some of their smoked meat during the holiday 

season: “We smoke a lot from roe deer. Shoulders and such. Some of which we give away, 

126 

 
 
 
around Christmas”. Some hunters even saved special cuts specifically for religious holiday 

celebrations. For example, Hunter 87 explained that moose tongue is a tradition for Christmas 

dinner: “I always take the tongue and heart if my hunting companions do not take it, for my mom 

very much wants to have the tongue, it belongs to the Christmas dinner, so I always take that out 

for her.” 

Recreation and Tourism 

The wildlife meat harvested from Swedish forests was perceived as uniquely Swedish, a 

direct connection to Swedish culture and place. Cultural ecosystem services like cultural heritage 

and identity were tied to wildlife meat and part of how wildlife meat provided tourism cultural 

ecosystem services. Wildlife meat was advertised as being local and Swedish. For example, on a 

trip to Östermalms Saluhall in Stockholm (a historic indoor market with food stalls and 

restaurants), I found numerous stalls selling all types of wildlife meat from different locations in 

Sweden advertised as local meat. Restaurants throughout Sweden had wildlife meat dishes 

(viltkött) on their menu; some restaurants marketed themselves specifically as wildlife meat 

restaurants. There were even tourist guides highlighting the best restaurants for wildlife meat 

consumption in Sweden. 

During interviews, hunters did not directly identify receiving cultural ecosystem services 

in the form of recreation and tourism. This was not surprising, as hunters already have wildlife 

meat and, as such, do not participate in wildlife meat tourism in Sweden.  Some hunters, 

however, profited from selling wildlife meat to food businesses or game handling facilities, that 

in turn sold meat to restaurants and markets. The market for wildlife meat in Sweden allows 

wildlife to provide cultural ecosystem services in the form of tourism. Some hunters may have 

profited from the sale of wildlife meat, but generally, hunters were slightly removed from this 

127 

 
 
 
commercial system. 

Discussion  

By identifying direct links between wildlife meat and culture, the results from my study 

help fill in the gaps in our existing knowledge about the relationship between wildlife meat and 

culture (Chausson et al, 2019; Nasi et al., 2011; Morsello et al., 2015). I identify that wildlife 

meat provides multiple cultural ecosystem services, evidence that wildlife meat is culturally 

important to Swedish hunters, and more broadly the cultural importance of wildlife. Previous 

research established the cultural importance of wildlife meat (Chapter 2), but very little literature 

exists that uses the cultural ecosystem services framework to describe this relationship 

(Valencia-Aguilar et al., 2013). My study broadens the diversity of contexts in which wildlife 

meat and its cultural importance are studied (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Van Vliet & Mbazza, 2011; 

Watkin Lui et al., 2016). To my knowledge, no studies have focused exclusively on the cultural 

ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat in Sweden or in as much detail. My research 

findings provide additional evidence that wildlife meat is culturally important to hunters who do 

not identify as members of a subsistence or indigenous community. This supports the concept 

that the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat may be ubiquitous across multiple 

groups. 

Governance can affect the benefits provided by wildlife for current and future generations 

(Grima et al., 2019).  Cultural ecosystem services are often not adequately considered or 

represented in assessments, and their importance is not recognized in decision making (Daniel et 

al., 2012; Plieninger et al., 2013). European Union governments are currently adopting the 

ecosystem services framework for policy development and assessment (Hansen & Malmaeus, 

2016). These study findings provide evidence of wildlife meat’s cultural importance, and could 

128 

 
 
aid in the inclusion of cultural ecosystem services addressing public health and wildlife policy. 

Issues of disease and contamination, a reduction in or loss of wildlife available for hunting, or 

changes to hunting regulations can all negatively affect hunters’ ability to harvest wildlife meat, 

resulting in loss of cultural ecosystem services (Kaltenborn et al., 2017). 

Changes in demand or other market structures can also affect how hunters use or benefit 

from wildlife meat. Because wildlife meat is so imbedded in many facets of hunters’ lives, 

changes to the accessibility of wildlife meat might be deeply felt. Changes in access to wildlife 

meat would likely affect an integral component of many hunters’ lives, potentially altering how 

they view themselves and interact with others in their social network. The way that wildlife meat 

is imbedded in a hunter’s life is a characteristic of cultural ecosystem services, which are often 

highly valued by the public and thus can play a role in public support for uses of natural systems 

that provide these services (Chan et al., 2011; Daniel et al., 2012; Milcu et al., 2013; Plieninger 

et al., 2013). Consuming wildlife meat was found to have a positive effect on Swedish non-

hunters’ attitudes toward hunting (Ljung et al., 2012; Ljung et al., 2015). The cultural ecosystem 

services provided by wildlife meat that were identified in my study may be a key component of 

that relationship.  

Wildlife meat is more than food for many Swedish hunters. Wildlife meat is woven into a 

hunter’s way of life and perpetuates the hunting season throughout the entire year. Wildlife meat 

is valued more than other domestically available meats because it is imbued with additional 

culturally important meaning. Wildlife meat is polysemic; it carries many different meanings 

simultaneously for hunters. Wildlife meat is an important component of Swedish hunters’ social 

lives and interactions, especially when used as gifts or to celebrate special people or events like 

religious holidays; this is consistent with other findings about the importance of wildlife meat in 

129 

 
 
hunters’ social relations (Adeola, 1992; Aiyadurai et al., 2010; Chausson et al, 2019; Omura, 

2013; VanVliet et al., 2016; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). Sharing meat was part of how Swedish 

hunters defined themselves in relationship to others, making wildlife meat integral to a hunter’s 

sense of self. This observation is consistent with other research, which reports that wildlife meat 

links directly to identity (Dizard, 2003; Dombrowski, 2007; East et al., 2005; Ngade et al., 2017; 

Omura, 2013; Searles, 2002). Wildlife meat consumption and sharing was a key way for hunters 

to participate in their cultural heritage around hunting, similar to findings from Condon et al 

(1995) and Watkin Lui et al. (2016). Like the Michigan hunters from Chapter 3, Swedish hunters 

used wildlife meat for educational purposes. Additionally, the knowledge needed to process and 

prepare wildlife meat for consumption created a knowledge system among Swedish hunters, akin 

to the knowledge systems around wildlife meat found in other cultures (Kaltenborn et al., 2017; 

Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996).  

Furthermore, my study provides preliminary evidence that wildlife meat purchased 

through markets provides cultural ecosystem services in the form of tourism and recreation 

(Hoffman et al., 2003). Hunters were able to benefit economically from selling wildlife meat to 

private persons, food businesses, and game handing facilities. Meanwhile, tourists could 

consume wildlife meat harvested from Swedish forests by Swedish hunters at restaurants or 

purchase wildlife meat in stores without first having to know a hunter. Without the existence of a 

market, these cultural ecosystem services would not be present or would be limited to those who 

personally know hunters. However, interviews with non-hunters who consume wildlife meat 

from market sources are needed to identify if wildlife meat provides additional cultural 

ecosystem services when available for purchase. 

The provisional and cultural ecosystem services provided to Swedish hunters by wildlife 

130 

 
 
meat often outweighed the economic incentives selling wildlife meat. Sharing wildlife meat 

provided hunters with multiple cultural ecosystem services, which hunters described valuing 

over potential profit. Profits from selling wildlife meat were often used to offset the costs of 

hunting, rather than as a main form of income (with the exception of wildlife meat harvested at 

estates). Generally, hunters prioritized their household’s nutritional needs, and if surplus wildlife 

meat was available, they shared or sold it via their social network. Even hunters with a surplus 

often opted to share rather than sell, or sold to friends and family at a reduced rate. While a 

detailed analysis of how hunters decide whether to sell or share meat is beyond the scope of this 

chapter, it appeared that hunters’ desire to consume and share wildlife meat often exceeded their 

desire to profit from its sale.  

The ecosystem services framework is rooted in economics and often measures value in 

monetary terms (Plieninger et al., 2015; Pröpper & Haupts, 2014). Past valuations of the 

ecosystem services provided by Swedish forests have used the market value of wildlife meat as 

one measure of value (Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016). That wildlife meat has a market value makes 

economic assessments of ecosystem services easier in Sweden compared to countries like the 

United States, where hunter-harvested wildlife meat has no legal or established economic value. 

However, my study found that wildlife meat provides many cultural ecosystem services that are 

difficult to put in economic terms, which begs the question: does the market value of Swedish 

wildlife meat represent an accurate estimate of its total value? Some hunters argued that the high 

price of wildlife meat in stores makes it inaccessible to other people. Other hunters called 

wildlife meat priceless. Further consideration of the cultural ecosystem services provided by 

wildlife meat is needed when making economic assessments of the value of wildlife meat to 

society. 

131 

 
 
My study did not find evidence that wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services in 

the form of aesthetic, cultural diversity, bequest, intrinsic, and existence, inspiration, or sense of 

place. However, these cultural ecosystem services are particularly difficult to identify in the 

context of wildlife meat. A lack of evidence in my study only warrants further investigation into 

these potential services, particularly sense of place. Wildlife meat has reportedly provided sense 

of place cultural ecosystem services in other contexts (Gombay, 2005; Watkin Lui et al., 2016). 

Many Swedish hunters identified that they enjoyed consuming wildlife meat because they knew 

where their food came from. This was discussed in health contexts such as meat quality, 

environmentally friendly food, and industrialized meat. Although these concepts linked meat to 

the local landscape, the connections made by hunters related more to health than to a strong 

sense of place, therefore sense of place was not identified as a cultural ecosystem service. 

Additionally, wildlife meat providing ties to regional or national identities may have been coded 

as sense of place by another researcher, however, I defined sense of place as wildlife meat 

providing direct ties to a specific place or landscape. Further questioning along this line of 

inquiry may have yielded more evidence for wildlife meat providing sense of place cultural 

ecosystem services. Swedish culture has strong ties to harvesting food from the forest (Hansen & 

Malmaeus, 2016); these connections between wildlife meat and place could be further explored. 

Part of wildlife meat’s value to tourists is that wildlife meat from Swedish forests provides local 

gastronomic experiences and connects people to the places they visit through consumption. This 

connection is likely present in Swedish society but was not adequality explored during data 

collection. 

Like the results reported in Chapter 3, the data in this chapter provides additional 

evidence for the co-generation of benefits though a synergistic relationship (a provisional 

132 

 
 
ecosystem service simultaneously provides cultural ecosystem services) and the co-occurrence of 

multiple cultural ecosystem services from a single provisional ecosystem service. My findings 

advance the theoretical underpinnings of the ecosystem services framework, especially in regard 

to the co-generation of cultural ecosystem services, for which evidence is limited (Plieninger et 

al., 2015; Satz et al., 2013). These findings also provide evidence that the presence of a 

provisional ecosystem service, like wildlife meat, could be used as a proxy measurement for the 

cultural ecosystem services derived from that provisional ecosystem service. 

Limitations 

These study findings provide a snapshot in time of a relatively homogenous group of 

hunters within a small geographic area. As cultural ecosystem services are unique to individuals 

and their culture, similar studies in different areas are needed to triangulate the results. 

Furthermore, using the methods from Chapter 3, with modifications to fit the Swedish context, 

makes evident the efficacy and transferability of applying the cultural ecosystems framework to 

wildlife meat. Using the ecosystem services framework allowed for consistency across cases, 

while still providing the flexibility to encompass the broad array of cultural connections to 

wildlife meat.  

Additionally, these study findings are difficult to generalize to all types of markets for 

wildlife meat in other locations. Markets for wildlife meat in Sweden are relatively small, elite, 

and highly regulated. Markets for wildlife meat in other regions of the world are less regulated 

and the profits from selling wildlife meat play a much greater role in hunters’ livelihoods 

(Cawthorn and Hoffman, 2015). Additional studies in different market conditions are needed to 

determine the full extent of the effect of markets on the cultural ecosystem services provided by 

wildlife meat. 

133 

 
 
Swedish hunters had difficulty expressing the cultural ecosystem services directly 

provided by wildlife meat. While hunters easily discussed all the ways that they used wildlife 

meat, when asked why wildlife meat was important to them, some struggled to articulate its 

value. This issue was exacerbated by some Swedes’ reserved natures and the translation of 

findings from Swedish to English. Swedish hunters were more likely to respond to questions 

with a simple yes or no, and provided less detailed responses when asked to elaborate on a 

situation. Additionally, some detail in responses was likely lost in translation, although efforts 

were made to limit this through intensive discussions between the translator and researcher for 

every transcript. Despite these challenges, the interviews still provided rich data for analysis, and 

ethnographic field notes helped fill in the gaps. 

Our analysis of study findings met with challenges due to overlapping cultural ecosystem 

services categories (i.e. co-occurrence) (Gee & Burkhard, 2010; MEA, 2005; Plieninger et al., 

2013). As reported in Chapter 3, the categories of cultural heritage and identity, and knowledge 

systems and education were often interlinked. Although coded segments were allowed multiple 

overlapping codes, quotes were not repeated in multiple categories when presented as results. 

Conclusion 

Wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services, emphasizing the cultural importance 

of wildlife meat—and more broadly, wildlife—to society. Formal markets in wildlife meat 

appeared to have little effect on the ecosystem services that hunters received from wildlife meat, 

but appeared to spread the benefits from wildlife meat more broadly. Currently, the deep-rooted 

nature of wildlife meat in hunters’ lives seem to be greater than a desire for economic gain from 

the sale of wildlife meat. These findings contribute to our knowledge about ecosystem services 

by revealing the synergistic relationships between provisional and cultural ecosystem services 

134 

 
 
 
and the co-generation of cultural ecosystem services. European Union governments are currently 

adopting the ecosystem services framework for policy development and assessment, to aid in 

maintaining benefits for current and future generations. Results from my study could aid 

lawmakers with considering the cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat when 

addressing public health and wildlife policy. 

135 

 
 
 
 
FIGURES  

Figure 4.1: 

Swedish municipalities used for selection of interview participants. 

References  

Appendix  

N 

Note. Blue municipalities are urban and orange municipalities are not urban. The northern urban 
(blue) municipality is Umeå, and from left to right the northern not urban (orange) municipalities 
are Bjurholm, Vindeln, and Robertsfors. The southern urban (blue) municipality is Norrköping, 
and from left to right the southern not urban (orange) municipalities are Katrineholm, Flen, and 
Gnesta. 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.1: 

TABLES  

Total number of harvested animals and estimated carcass meat from the five large ungulate 
species hunted in Sweden during the 2010/2011 hunting season.   

Species 

Moose (Alces alces) 
Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) 
Fallow Deer (Dama dama) 
Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) 
Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) 
Total  

Total number of 
harvested animals 
92,132 
5,822 
21,359 
58,527 
80,398 
258,238 

Estimated carcass meat 
weight (kg) 
11,311,522 
333,699 
545,728 
2,952,681 
972,819 
16,116,449 

Note. Carcass meat estimates use total carcass weight, although the actual amount of edible 
wildlife meat produced is less. This table is modified from Wiklund & Malmfors (2014).  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.2: 

The cultural ecosystem service categories used in this study, their definitions, and how they were 
interpreted in the context of wildlife meat.  

CES 
Category 
Cultural 
Heritage 

Identity 

Education 

Knowledge 
Systems 

Social 
Relations 

Spiritual & 
Religious 

Recreation 
& Tourism 

Definition 

Application to wildlife meat 

Legacy of biophysical features, 
physical artifacts, and intangible 
attributes (related to the natural world) 
of a group or society that are inherited 
from past generations, maintained in 
the present, and bestowed for the 
benefit of future generations (Daniel et 
al., 2012). 
Formation or thickening of cultural 
identity tied to an ecosystem and/or its 
components (Chan et al., 2012). 
Ecosystems, their components, and 
processes provide a basis for formal 
and informal education (MEA, 2005). 
Ecosystems influence the types of 
knowledge systems developed 
(traditional and formal) (MEA, 2005). 

Ecosystems provide opportunities for 
creating and enhancing relationships 
and strengthen communities (Calbet-
Mir et al., 2012). 
Attach spiritual and religious values to 
ecosystems and their components 
(MEA, 2005) and ecosystems are a 
source of inspiration for religious or 
spiritual thought and experience (Chan 
et al., 2012).   
Ecosystem services are derived from 
the physical use of ecosystems for 
recreational purposes (Kulczyk et al., 
2018), this also includes recreation 
conducted thought tourism (MEA, 
2005). 

Wildlife meat is a physical part of the 
natural world that serves as a totem for 
stories and memories, is involved in 
traditions, and is a source of 
knowledge that is part of hunters’ 
cultural heritage and passed down 
through generations. 

Formation or thickening of identity 
tied to the processing, sharing, and 
eating of wildlife meat. 
Processing, sharing, and eating wildlife 
meat provides a basis for formal and 
informal education. 
Processing, cooking, sharing, and 
eating wildlife meat helps build 
knowledge systems related to wildlife 
meat. 
Processing, cooking, sharing, and 
eating wildlife meat provides 
opportunities to create, maintain, and 
strengthen relationships. 
Wildlife meat is a source for religious 
or spiritual thoughts and experiences. 

Wildlife meat is appreciated by tourists 
who identify it as a local food and 
view consuming it as a unique 
experience. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Adeola, M. O. (1992). Importance of wild animals and their parts in the culture, religious 

festivals, and traditional medicine, of Nigeria. Environmental Conservation, 19(2), 125–
134. 

Aiyadurai, A., Singh, N. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2010). Wildlife hunting by indigenous 
tribes: A case study from Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Oryx, 44(4), 564–572. 

Alvard, M. S., Robinson, J. G., Redford, K. H., & Kaplan, H. (1997). The sustainability of 

subsistence hunting in the neotropics: La sustentabilidad de la caza de subsistencia en el 
neotrópico. Conservation Biology, 11(4), 977–982. 

Bennett, E. L., & Robinson, J. G. (2000). Hunting of wildlife in tropical forests: Implications for 

biodiversity and forest peoples. The World Bank. 

Bergstrom, R., Huldt, H., & Nilsson, U (Eds). (1992). Swedish Game: Biology and Management. 

Svenska Jägareförbundet. 

Boman, M., & Mattsson, L. (2012). The hunting value of game in Sweden: Have changes 

occurred over recent decades? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(7), 669–674. 

Brashares, J. S., Golden, C. D., Weinbaum, K. Z., Barrett, C. B., & Okello, G. V. (2011). 

Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13931–13936. 

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural 

Psychology, 1(3): 185–216. 

Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Reyes-García, V. (2012). Beyond food production: 

Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan 
Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics, 74, 153–160. 

Cawthorn, D. M., & Hoffman, L. C. (2015). The bushmeat and food security nexus: A global 
account of the contributions, conundrums and ethical collisions. Food Research 
International, 76, 906–925. 

Chan, K. M., Goldstein, J., Satterfield, T., Hannahs, N., Kikiloi, K., Naidoo, R., Vadeboncoeur, 

N., & Woodside, U. (2011). Cultural services and non-use values. In P. Kareva, H. Tallis, 
T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, & S. Polasky (Eds.), Natural capital: Theory and practice of 
mapping ecosystem services (pp. 206–228). Oxford University Press.  

Chan, K. M., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., 
Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B. S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., 
Ruckelshaus, M., Russsell, R., Tam, J., & Woodside, U. (2012). Where are cultural and 
social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive 

139 

 
 
 
engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756. 

Chausson, A. M., Rowcliffe, J. M., Escouflaire, L., Wieland, M., & Wright, J. H. (2019). 

Understanding the sociocultural drivers of urban bushmeat consumption for behavior 
change interventions in Pointe Noire, Republic of Congo. Human Ecology, 47(2), 179–
191. 

Condon, R. G., Collings, P., & Wenzel, G. (1995). The best part of life: Subsistence hunting, 

ethnicity, and economic adaptation among young adult Inuit males. Arctic, 48(1), 31–46. 

Corradini, A., Marescotti, M. E., Demartini, E., & Gaviglio, A. (2022). Consumers' perceptions 
and attitudes toward hunted wild game meat in the modern world: A literature 
review. Meat Science, 194, 108955. 

Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chane, K. M., Costanzaf, R., 
Elmqvistg, E., Flinth, C. G., Gobsteri, P. H., Grêt-Regameyj, A., Lavek, R., Muharl, S., 
Penkerm, M., Riben, R. G., Schauppenlehnerb, T., Sikoro,T., Soloviyp, I., Spierenburgq, 
M., Taczanowskab, K., Tame, J., & von der Dunkj, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural 
services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819. 

Davies, G., & Brown, D. (Eds). (2007). Bushmeat and Livelihoods: Wildlife Management and 

Poverty Reduction. Wiley-Blackwell. 

Dizard, J. E. (2003). Mortal stakes: Hunters and hunting in contemporary America. University 

of Massachusetts Press. 

Dombrowski, K. (2007). Subsistence livelihood, native identity and internal differentiation in 

Southeast Alaska. Anthropologica, 49(2), 211–229. 

East, T., Kümpel, N. F., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2005). Determinants of urban 
bushmeat consumption in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. Biological Conservation, 126(2), 
206–215. 

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. & Shaw. L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (2nd ed). 

The University of Chicago Press.  

Freese, C. H. (Ed.). (1997). Harvesting wild species: Implications for biodiversity conservation. 

The John Hopkins University Press.  

Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualizing cultural ecosystem services: a novel 
framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208–217. 

Food Law, Act 92 of 2000 (2000). Michigan. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-act-92-of-

2000. 

140 

 
 
Gee, K., & Burkhard, B. (2010). Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind 
farming: a case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein. Ecological 
Complexity, 7(3), 349–358. 

Geist, V. (1988). How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, 

jeopardize wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 2(1), 15–26.  

Goguen, A. D. & Riley, S. J. (2020). Consumption of wild-harvested meat in society. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, 44(3), 553–563.   

Gombay, N. (2005). Shifting identities in a shifting world: Food, place, community, and the 

politics of scale in an Inuit settlement. Environment and Planning D: Society and 
Space, 23(3), 415–433. 

Grima, N., Fisher, B., Ricketts, T. H., & Sonter, L. J. (2019). Who benefits from ecosystem 

services? Analysing recreational moose hunting in Vermont, USA. Oryx, 53(4), 707–715. 

Gurven, M. (2004). To give and to give not: the behavioral ecology of human food transfers. 

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(4), 543–583.  

Hansen, K., & Malmaeus, M. (2016). Ecosystem services in Swedish forests. Scandinavian 

Journal of Forest Research, 31(6), 626–640. 

Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A 
systematic review of empirical tests. Social science & medicine, 292, 114523. 

Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural 

ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Cawthorn, D. M. (2012). What is the role and contribution of meat from 

wildlife in providing high quality protein for consumption? Animal Frontiers, 2(4), 40–
53. 

Hoffman, L. C., Crafford, K., Muller, N., & Schutte, D. W. (2003). Perceptions and consumption 
of game meat by a group of tourists visiting South Africa. South African Journal of 
Wildlife Research, 33(2), 125–130. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006). Game and venison–meat for the modern consumer. Meat 

Science, 74(1), 197–208. 

Kaltenborn, B. P., Linnell, J. D., Baggethun, E. G., Lindhjem, H., Thomassen, J., & Chan, K. M. 

(2017). Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A 
case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological 
Economics, 140, 166–176. 

Krantz, C. (2015). Game as a resource: From forest to table – Current situation and 

141 

 
 
development opportunities – a pilot study. Södermanland County Administrative Board 
County. www.lansstyrelsen.se/sodermanland/publikationer.  

Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (1996). Dietary change and traditional food systems of 

indigenous peoples. Annual Review of Nutrition, 16(1), 417–442. 

Kulczyk, S., Woźniak, E., & Derek, M. (2018). Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated 

model of recreational ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 31, 491–501. 

Lavsund, S., Nygrén, T., & Solberg, E. J. (2003). Status of moose populations and challenges to 

moose management in Fennoscandia. Alces, 39, 109–130. 

Lindqvist, S., Camilla, S., Bjärstig, T., & Kvastegård, E. (2014). The changing role of hunting in 

Sweden: From subsistence to ecosystem stewardship. Alces, 50, 35–51. 

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., & Ericsson, G. (2015). Game meat consumption feeds urban support of 
traditional use of natural resources. Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 657–669. 

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., Heberlein, T. A., & Ericsson, G. (2012). Eat prey and love: Game‐meat 

consumption and attitudes toward hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 36(4), 669–675. 

Mainka, S., & Trivedi, M. (Eds.) (2002). Links between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods 
and Food Security: The sustainable use of wild species for meat. International Union for 
Conservation of Nature.  

Mattsson, L., Boman, M., & Ezebilo, E. E. (2014). More or less moose: How is the hunting value 

affected? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(2), 170–173. 

Milcu, A., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: A 

literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 1–34. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Current 

state and trends. Island Press. 

Morsello, C., Yagüe, B., Beltreschi, L., Van Vliet, N., Adams, C., Schor, T., Quiceno-Mesa, M. 

P., & Cruz, D. (2015). Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption 
and preference than economic factors among urban Amazonians from Brazil and 
Colombia. Ecology and Society, 20(4). 

Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G., & Christophersen, T. 

(2008). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: The bushmeat crisis 
(Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 33). Retrieved from 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-33-en.pdf 

Nasi, R., Taber, A., & Van Vliet, N. (2011). Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and 

livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13(3), 355–

142 

 
 
368. 

Neto, N. A. L., Brooks, S. E., & Alves, R. R. (2009). From Eshu to Obatala: Animals used in 

sacrificial rituals at Candomblé "terreiros" in Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and 
Ethnomedicine, 5, 1–10. 

Ngade, I. N. M., Singer, M., Marcus, O., & Hasemann, J. (2017). Implications of changing 

attitudes towards game meat consumption at the time of Ebola in Limbe, 
Cameroon. Human Organization, 76(1), 48–58. 

Omura, K. (2013) The ontology of sociality: Sharing: and subsistence mechanisms. In Kawai, K. 
(Ed.). Groups: The evolution of human sociality. Kyoto University Press & Trans Pacific 
Press. 

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications. 

Paulsen, P., Bauer, A., & Smulders, F. J. M. (Eds.). (2014). Trends in game meat hygiene: From 

forest to fork. Wageningen Academic Publishers. 

Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Byg, A., Hartel, T., Hurley, P., López-Santiago, C., 

Nagabhatla, N., Oteros-Rozas, E., Raymond, C., van der Horst, D., & Huntsinger, L. 
(2015). The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and 
planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 28–33. 

Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and 

quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–
129. 

Pröpper, M., & Haupts, F. (2014). The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process 

and transformation. Ecological Economics, 108, 28–35. 

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publishing.   

Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture, intangibles 

and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 
103–114. 

Satz, D., Gould, R. K., Chan, K. M., Guerry, A., Norton, B., Satterfield, T., Halpern, B. S., 

Levine, J., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Basurto, X., & Klain, S. (2013). The challenges 
of incorporating cultural ecosystem services into environmental 
assessment. Ambio, 42(6), 675–684. 

Searles, E. (2002). Food and the making of modern Inuit identities. Food and Foodways, 10(1–

2), 55–78. 

Scholte, S. S., van Teeffelen, A. J., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural 

143 

 
 
perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and 
methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67–78. 

Schwartz, S. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Briones, E. (2006). The role of identity in acculturation 

among immigrant people: Theoretical propositions, empirical questions, and applied 
recommendations. Human Development, 49(1), 1–30. 

Stanford, C. B., & Bunn, H. T. (Eds.). (2001). Meat-eating and human evolution. Oxford 

University Press.  

Statistics Sweden. (2023). Population Statistics. https://www.scb.se/be0101-en. 

Sullivan, G. M., & Sargeant, J. (2011). Qualities of qualitative research: Part I. Journal of 

Graduate Medical Education, 3(4), 449–452. 

Svenska Jägareförbundet (SJ). (n.d.). Jakten pa alg. http:www.jagareforbundet.se.  

Swedish National Food Agency (SNFA). (2007). Guidance for hunter’s direct supply of small 

quantities of wild game meat. www.slv.se.  

Swedish National Food Agency (SNFA). (n.d.). Wild boar training for hunters who want to sell 

directly to consumers. https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/foretagande-regler-
kontroll/regler-for-livsmedelsforetag/primarproduktion/vildsvin/vildsvinsutbildning-for-
forsaljning-direkt-till-konsument 

Teherani, A., Martimianakis, T., Stenfors-Hayes, T., Wadhwa, A., & Varpio, L. (2015). 

Choosing a qualitative research approach. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 7(4), 
669–670. 

Titus, K., Haynes, T. L., & Paragi, T. F. (2009). The importance of moose, caribou, deer, and 

small game in the diet of Alaskans. In Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: 
Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund.  

Valencia-Aguilar, A., Cortés-Gómez, A. M., & Ruiz-Agudelo, C. A. (2013). Ecosystem services 
provided by amphibians and reptiles in Neotropical ecosystems. International Journal of 
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9(3), 257–272. 

Van Vliet, N., Cornelis, D., Beck, H., Lindsey, P., Nasi, R., LeBel, S., Moreno, J., Fragoso, J., & 
Jori, F. (2016). Meat from the wild: Extractive uses of wildlife and alternatives for 
sustainability. In R. Mateo, B. Arroyo, & Garcia, J. T. (Eds), Current Trends in Wildlife 
Research (pp. 225–265). Springer International Publishing. 

Van Vliet, N., & Mbazza, P. (2011). Recognizing the multiple reasons for bushmeat 

consumption in urban areas: A necessary step toward the sustainable use of wildlife for 
food in Central Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(1), 45–54. 

144 

 
 
Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human 

dimensions. Venture Publishing. 

VerCauteren, K. C., Anderson, C. W., Van Deelen, T. R., Drake, D., Walter, W. D., Vantassel, 

S. M. & Hygnstrom, S. E. (2011). Regulated commercial harvest to manage 
overabundant white-tailed deer: An idea to consider? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35, 185–
194. 

Volpato, G., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Gruppuso, P., Zocchi, D. M., & Pieroni, A. (2020). Baby 

pangolins on my plate: Possible lessons to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal 
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16(19), 1–12.  

Watkin Lui, F., Stoeckl, N., Delisle, A., Kiatkoski Kim, M., & Marsh, H. (2016). Motivations for 
sharing bushmeat with an urban diaspora in Indigenous Australia. Human Dimensions of 
Wildlife, 21(4), 345–360. 

Wegner, G. I., Murray, K. A., Springmann, M., Muller, A., Sokolow, S. H., Saylors, K., & 

Morens, D. M. (2022). Averting wildlife-borne infectious disease epidemics requires a 
focus on socio-ecological drivers and a redesign of the global food 
system. eClinicalMedicine, 47. 

Wiklund, E., & Malmfors, G. (2014). Game meat as a resource in Sweden - with particular focus 

on moose (Alces alces). In P. Paulsen, A. Bauer, M. & F. J. M. Smulders (Eds.), Game 
meat hygiene in focus: From forest to fork (pp. 305–320). Wageningen Academic 
Publishers. 

145 

 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4.1: SWEDISH POSTCARD 

Figure 4.2: 

Swedish Postcard. 

Note. The front (top) and back (bottom) of the postcard sent to Swedish hunters inviting them to 
participate in the study. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4.2: SWEDISH LETTER  

Figure 4.3: 

Swedish Letter. 

Note. The letter on SLU (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet) letterhead sent to Swedish hunters 
inviting them to participate in the study.  

147 

       2016-05-06 Institutionen för vilt, fisk och miljö    Hej Jager,             Att förstå hur människor använder och värderar naturresurser leder till bättre beslut inom viltförvaltningen. Vi är intresserade av att lära oss hur jägare använder viltkött. Jägare har unika erfarenheter och för att få tillgång till dessa genomför jag intervjuer med er som jagar.  Intervjuer är genomförda i norra Sverige och nu är det dags för södra Sverige, närmare bestämt Norrköping med omnejd.  Om du, själv eller någon i ditt jaktlag, har skjutit minst ett stort klövvilt (älg, rådjur, vildsvin, dovhjort eller kronhjort) under jaktsäsongen 2015/2016 skulle jag vilja träffa dig för en intervju. Jag uppskattar om du tar dig tid att träffa mig. Dina erfarenheter kommer berika kunskapen om jakt i Sverige. Vänligen kontakta mig via telefon, sms eller e-mail för mer detaljer.     Jag ser fram emot att höra från dig!      Katarina Hansson    Kontaktinformation Katarina Hansson Telefon: 090-786 8511 Mobil: 073-904 1143 E-mail: katarina.hansson@slu.se  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4.3: SWEDISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN SWEDISH  

Intervjuguide 

Inledande frågor 

Vid vilken ålder började du jaga? Vad jagade du?  

Hur lärde du dig jaga? Vem lärde dig?  

Vilka arter jagar du nu?  

Vad jagar du helst?  

Även om du jagar andra arter eller äter annat kött så fokuserar den här studien på klövviltet. 
Detta för att mest kött kommer från klövviltet, så härifrån kommer intervjun fokusera på 
klövviltet. 

Hur ofta jagar du (älg, rådjur, kronhjort, dovhjort, vildsvin) ?  

Vad motiverar dig att jaga? (Om naturupplevelse; På vilket sätt? Kan du beskriva upplevelsen?) 

Är du medlem i något jaktlag? Hur många?  

Du är medlem i ______ lag. Jag kommer fråga om ett lag i taget.  

LAG 1 

Var jagar laget? Samhälle, kommun?  

Vilken typ av mark jagar ni på? Privat, arrende? 

Hur många är med i laget?  

Är du jaktledare? 

Hur bereder ni i jaktlaget fällda djur? Från skog till frys: Var hanterar ni köttet? Hur fick de 
tillgång till stället?  

Sparar ni några särskilda delar? Av vilket skäl?  

LAG 2 

Var jagar laget? Samhälle, kommun?  

Vilken typ av mark jagar ni på? Privat, arrende? 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hur många är med i laget?  

Är du jaktledare? 

Hur bereder ni i jaktlaget fällda djur? Från skog till frys: Var hanterar ni köttet? Hur fick de 
tillgång till stället? 

Sparar ni några särskilda delar? Av vilket skäl?  

Individuell jakt och kött 

Har du skjutit och tagit hem kött från något klövvilt utan att ha varit med i ett jaktlag, dvs själv? 

Med andra? Vilka, var? Hur mycket?  

Hur bereder du köttet du tagit hem? Från skog till frys: Var hanterar du köttet? 

Sparar du någon särskild del? Finns det något särskilt skäl? 

Hushållet 

Jagar någon annan i ditt hushåll? (De som lever i ditt hus) 

Bidrar denna/dessa till mängden viltkött i hushållet?  

Om ja, vilka typer av viltkött tar de med hem och hur mycket?  

Förvaras detta viltkött tillsammans med din mängd eller förvaras de separat?  

Viltköttskonsumtion 

Tidigare sa vi att du hade tagit hem _______ viltkött. Om du jämför denna jaktsäsongs totala 
mängd kött du tagit hem med ett normalt år, är det normalt, mer eller mindre? 

Äter du viltköttet du tar med hem? 

Om inte, finns det någon särskild anledning till det?  

Äter andra i hushållet det viltkött du tar med hem? 

Om ja, vem?  

Om inte, varför inte?  

Vad gör du med viltköttet hemma? Hur används det? (Rått, korv, hamburgare)  

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Är det någon särskild tid på året du och ditt hushåll äter mer viltkött? Eller är det jämt utspritt 
över året? 

a)  Om konsumtionen varierar; När äter du mest viltkött? 

Hur ofta äter du viltkött under denna tidsperiod?  

Hur ofta äter du viltkött under resten av året?  

b) Om konsumtionen är jämn: Hur ofta äter du viltkött under året?  

Hur viktig är viltkött i din kost? (Protein, speciella tillfällen) (På vilket sätt är det viktigt? På 
vilket sätt är det ekologiskt?)  

Varför väljer du att äta viltkött? Varför tycker du om att äta viltkött? 

Uppskattningsvis, hur många procent av det röda köttet du äter din kost kommer från viltkött?  

Dela viltkött 

Ger du viltkött till någon utanför ditt hushåll?  

Om inte, finns det något särskilt skäl varför du inte delar viltkött? 

Om du tänker tillbaka på den senaste jaktsäsongen (2015/2016) och det viltkött du tagit hem, 
vem har du gett viltkött till?  

Har du delat med någon annan?  

Har du tagit med kött till en större middag, ex jobb-evenemang eller fest?  

Om ja, beskriv evenemanget. (Hur många personer, hur ofta, flera evenemang?) 

Brukar du bjuda hem folk att äta viltkött? (Hur ofta? Hur många personer? Vilka? Samma eller 
olika personer? Hur ofta är ofta: veckovis, månadsvis eller årligen?) 

Är det någon du har planerar att ge viltkött till som du ännu inte gett till? T.ex i sommar. 

Är det någon du vanligtvis ger kött till som du inte har gett till senaste jaktsäsongen? 

Hur väljer du vem du ger kött till?  

Hur väljer du hur mycket du ska ge bort?  

Vilka delar väljer du att spara? Är det något du sparar till dig själv och ditt hushåll? Särskilt skäl?   
Vilka delar väljer du att ge bort? Särskilt skäl?   

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hur gör du med det som inte är kött, typ ben, hud?  

Är det någon tid under året du ger bort mer kött eller ger du samma mängd hela året? 

Om ja, när ger du bort som mest?  

Om hela året, hur ofta ger du bort kött under året?  

Byta / Få viltkött 

Händer det att du byter viltkött mot något annat?  

Vem? Relation? Hur mycket? Särskilt skäl? Hur ofta? Vad motiverar dig att byta?  

Får du eller någon annan i ditt hushåll viltkött som gåva av någon?  

Vem? Relation? Hur mycket? Särskilt skäl? Hur ofta? 

Sälja viltkött 

Säljer du ditt viltkött till någon, t.ex. privatpersoner, vänner, släkt, gårdsbutik, restaurang? 

Om inte, finns det något särskilt skäl till att du inte gör det? 

Om du tänker tillbaka på viltköttet du tagit med hem senaste jaktsäsongen (2015/2016), till vem 
har du sålt? 

Hur väljer du vem du ska sälja kött till?  

Hur avgör du hur mycket kött du ska sälja? 

Finns det någon särskild del av djuret du säljer? Särskilt skäl?  Säljer du delar som inte är kött, 
t.ex hud, ben?  

Är det någon särskild tid på året du säljer mer viltkött eller är det samma mängd under hela året? 

Om ja, vilken tid på året säljer du mest? 

Om hela året, hur ofta säljer du kött under året?  

Vad gör du med pengarna du får genom försäljning?   

Har jaktlaget sålt kött? Till vem, i vilken form? 

Vad gör lagen med pengarna de får in via försäljning? 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sociokulturellt värde 

För att sammanfatta det vi har pratat om idag, generellt, vad motiverar dig att ge bort viltkött? 
Att ge bort kött, är det en viktigt aktivitet för dig? Varför/Varför inte?  

Att sälja viltkött, är det en viktig aktivitet för dig? Varför/ Varför inte?  

Alt. Hur känner du inför försäljning av viltkött?  

En del av den här forskningen studerar effekter hos icke-jägare som äter viltkött. Skulle du säga 
att det finns någon effekt på de som inte jagar själva att du ger till dem? Vilken typ av effekt? 
(Kan du beskriva hur icke-jägare har upplevt det när de har fått viltkött?) 

Funderingar / Oro  

Känner du någon oro kring att ge bort eller sälja ditt viltkött?  

Känner du någon oro för att äta viltkött?  

Om ja, vad/varför? (Var fick de information ifrån? Har laget talat om det?)  

Har de du gett till eller delat med uttryckt oro kring att äta köttet du gett till dem? 

Avslutning  

Har du några frågor eller kommentarer rörande det vi talat om idag?  

Om jag har följdfrågor, kan jag kontakta dig då?  
Om ja, hur? Kontaktuppgifter?  

Jag har ett kort formulär med bakgrundsinformation för att samla demografisk data. Det tar max 
5 minuter att fylla i. Syftet är att kunna jämföra.  

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4.4: SWEDISH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH  

Interview guide 

Introductory questions 

At what age did you start hunting? What did you hunt? 

How did you learn to hunt? Who taught you? 

What species are you hunting now? 

What do you prefer to hunt? 

Even if you hunt other species or eat other meat, this study focuses on ungulates. This is because 
most meat comes from ungulates, so from here the interview will focus on ungulates. 

How often do you hunt (moose, roe deer, red deer, fallow deer, wild boar)? 

What motivates you to hunt? (About nature experience; In what way? Can you describe the 
experience?) 

Are you a member of a hunting team? How many? 

You are a member of ______ teams. I will ask one team at a time. 

TEAM 1 

Where does the team hunt? Community, municipality? 

What type of ground do you hunt on? Private, lease? 

How many are on the team? 

Are you the team leader? 

How do you prepare downed animals in the hunting team? From forest to freezer: Where do you 
handle the meat? How did the team gain access to the place? 

Do you save any particular parts? For what reason? 

TEAM 2 

Where does the team hunt? Community, municipality? 

What type of ground do you hunt on? Private, lease? 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
How many are on the team? 

Are you the team leader? 

How do you prepare downed animals in the hunting team? From forest to freezer: Where do you 
handle the meat? How did the team gain access to the place? 

Do you save any particular parts? For what reason? 

Individual hunting and meat 

Did you harvest any large ungulate species not as a member a member of a team, i.e. yourself? 

Which species? Where? How much? 

How do you prepare the meat you brought home? From forest to freezer: Where do you handle 
the meat? 

Do you save any particular part? Is there a particular reason? 

The Household 

Does anyone else in your household hunt? (Those who live in your house) 

Does this contribute to the amount of game meat in the household? 

If so, what types of game meat do they bring home and how much? 

Is this game meat stored with your lot or are they stored separately? 

Game meat consumption 

Earlier we said that you had brought home _______ game meat. If you compare this hunting 
season's total amount of meat you brought home with a normal year, is it normal, more, or less? 

Do you eat the game meat you bring home? 

If not, is there any particular reason for that? 

Do others in the household eat the game meat you bring home? 

If yes, who? 

If not, why not? 

What do you do with the game meat at home? How is it used? (Raw, sausage, hamburger) 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Is there a particular time of year that you and your household eat more game meat? Or is it 
evenly spread over the year? 

a) If consumption varies; When do you eat the most game meat? 

How often do you eat game meat during this time period? 

How often do you eat game meat during the rest of the year? 

b) If consumption is even: How often do you eat game meat during the year? 

How important is game meat in your diet? (Protein, special occasions) (How is it important? 
How is it organic?) 

Why do you choose to eat game meat? Why do you enjoy eating game meat? 

Approximately, what percentage of the red meat you eat in your diet comes from game meat? 

Sharing Game Meat  

Do you share game meat with people outside your household? 

If not, is there a particular reason why you don't share game meat? 

If you think back to the last hunting season (2015/2016) and the game meat you brought home, 
who did you give game meat to? 

Have you shared with someone else? 

Have you brought meat to a larger dinner, e.g. work event or party? 

If yes, describe the event. (How many people, how often, several events?) 

Do you usually invite people over to eat game meat? (How often? How many people? Who? The 
same or different people? How often is often: weekly, monthly or yearly?) 

Is there someone you plan to give game meat to that you haven't yet? For example, this summer. 

Is there someone you usually give game meat to that you haven't given to this past hunting 
season? 

How do you choose who you give meat to? 

How do you choose how much to give away? 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Which parts do you choose to save? Is it something you save for yourself and your household? 
Special reason? 

Which parts do you choose to give away? Special reason? 

What do you do with other parts, like bones, skin? 

Is there any time during the year that you give away more meat or do you give the same amount 
all year? 

If yes, when do you give away the most? 

About the whole year, how often do you give away meat during the year? 

Barter / Trade Game Meat  

Do you happen to trade game meat for something else? 

Who? Relationship? How much? Special reason? How often? What motivates you to switch? 

Do you or someone else in your household receive game meat as a gift from someone? 

Who? Relationship? How much? Special reason? How often? 

Selling Game Meat  

Do you sell your game meat to someone, e.g. private individuals, friends, family, farm shop, 
restaurant? 

If not, is there any particular reason why you don't? 

If you think back to the game meat you brought home last hunting season (2015/2016), who did 
you sell to? 

How do you choose who to sell meat to? 

How do you decide how much meat to sell? 

Is there a particular part of the animal you sell? Special reason? Do you sell parts that are not 
meat, eg skin, bones? 

Is there a particular time of year you sell more game meat or is it the same amount throughout 
the year? 

If so, what time of year do you sell the most? 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
About the whole year, how often do you sell meat during the year? 

What do you do with the money you get from sales? 

Has the hunting team sold meat? To whom, in what form? 

What do the teams do with the money they get through sales? 

Sociocultural value 

To summarize what we've talked about today, in general, what motivates you to share game 
meat? 

Is sharing game meat an important activity for you? Why/Why not? 

Is selling game meat an important activity for you? Why/ Why not? 

How do you feel about selling game meat? 

Part of this research studies effects in non-hunters who eat game meat. Would you say that there 
is any effect on those who don't hunt themselves that you give game meat to? What kind of effect? 
(Can you describe how non-hunters have experienced it when they have had venison?) 

Thoughts / Worries 

Do you feel any anxiety about giving away or selling your game meat? 

Do you have any concerns about eating game meat? 

If yes, what/why? (Where did they get the information? Has the team talked about it?) 

Have those you have given to or shared with expressed concern about eating the meat you have 
given them? 

Termination 

Do you have any questions or comments about what we talked about today? 

If I have follow-up questions, can I contact you then? 
If yes, how? Contact details? 

I have a short form with background information to collect demographic data. It takes a 
maximum of 5 minutes to fill in. The purpose i 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4.5: SWEDISH BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN SWEDISH 

Bakgrundsinformation 

Är du man eller kvinna?  

  Man 

  Kvinna 

2.  Vilket år är du född?   

Jag är född 19________ (Ange år) 

3.  Är du född i Sverige? 

  Ja 

  Nej  

4.  Hur många år har du bott i Sverige?  _______________ år 

5.  Vad är ditt yrke?   

______________________________________________________________ 

6.  Hur skulle du beskriva ditt nuvarande bostadsområde? 

  På landsbygden, eller ort med färre än 200 invånare  

  Ort med färre än 2 000 invånare 

  Ort med 2 000 - 9 999 invånare 

  Ort med 10 000 - 199 999 invånare  

  200 000 eller mer (t. ex. Stockholm, Göteborg eller Malmö) 

7.  Hur skulle du beskriva området du bodde i under största delen av din barndom? 

Barndomen är ditt liv före 18 års ålder. 

  På landsbygden, eller ort med färre än 200 invånare  

  Ort med färre än 2 000 invånare 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Ort med 2 000 - 9 999 invånare 

  Ort med 10 000 - 199 999 invånare  

  200 000 eller mer (t. ex. Stockholm, Göteborg eller Malmö) 

8.  Vilken utbildning har du? Sätt ett kryss i rutan framför det alternativ du anser stämma bäst 

in på dig. 

  Obligatorisk skola (t.ex. grundskola, folkskola) 

  Yrkesutbildning (yrkesskola, fackskola, institut av olika slag) 

  Gymnasieutbildning (även realexamen, folkhögskola) 

  Universitet eller högskoleutbildning 

9.  Ungefär hur stor är ditt hushålls sammanlagda inkomst efter skatt per månad? 

  0 – 9.999 kr 

  10.000 – 19.999 kr  

  20.000 – 29.999 kr 

  30.000 – 39.999 kr 

  40.000 – 49.999 kr 

  50.000 – 59.999 kr 

  60.000 kr eller mer 

10. Är du medlem i någon jägarorganisation? 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

11. Övriga kommentarer som du vill dela med dig av?  

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 4.6: SWEDISH BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH  

Background Information  

10. What is your gender?  

  Male 

  Female 

11. In what year were you born?     

I was born in 19________ (Enter year) 

12. Were you born in Sweden?  

  Yes  

  No  

13. How many years have you lived in Sweden?  _______________ year(s) 

14. What is/are your profession(s)? 

15. How would you describe where your current residence? 

2)  A rural area, or place with fewer than 200 inhabitants 

  Place with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants 

  Place with 2,000 - 9,999 inhabitants  

  Place with 10,000 - 199,999 inhabitants 

  200,000 or more (e.g. Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö) 

16. How would you describe the area you lived in for most of your childhood?  
17. Childhood is your life before the age of 18.  

3)  A rural area, or place with fewer than 200 inhabitants 

  Place with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants 

  Place with 2,000 - 9,999 inhabitants  

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Place with 10,000 - 199,999 inhabitants 

  200,000 or more (e.g. Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö) 

18. What education do you have? Put a cross in the box in front of the option you think suits 

you best. 

4)  Compulsory schooling (e.g. elementary school, folk school)  

5)  Vocational training (vocational school, trade school, institutes of various kinds)  

6)  Secondary School (also real exam, high folk school)  

7)  University or higher education  

19. What is your total household income after tax each month? 

  0 – 9.999 kr 

  10.000 – 19.999 kr  

  20.000 – 29.999 kr 

  30.000 – 39.999 kr 

  40.000 – 49.999 kr 

  50.000 – 59.999 kr 

  60.000 kr or more 

20. Are you a member of a hunting organization?  

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

21. Any other comments you would like to share?  

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 5: A CROSS-CASE COMPARISON OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 
PROVIDED BY WILDLIFE MEAT UNDER DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS  

Abstract 

Institutions are essential for effective natural resource management and the allocation of 

benefits and costs from natural systems across society. Wildlife meat, meat procured from free-

ranging animals, provides ecosystem services and disservices to those who harvest or consume 

it. Institutions regulate how wildlife meat is obtained, used, and distributed throughout society. 

Markets in wildlife meat and the policies that govern them are an example of an institution that 

affects the harvest, use, and distribution of wildlife meat. In this chapter, I use the Institutional 

Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to explore the influence of governance (in 

particular, the presence or absence of regulated markets) on the creation and distribution of 

benefits from wildlife meat in Sweden and Michigan, USA. Based on this comparison, the 

provisional and cultural ecosystem services that hunters derive from wildlife meat appear 

ubiquitous, regardless of the presence or absence of markets for wildlife meat. Overall, the 

provisional and cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat in Sweden and Michigan 

are remarkably similar, despite differences in physical environment, community attributes, and 

rules or regulations governing wildlife, hunting, and wildlife meat distribution. It appears, 

however, that wildlife meat is more accessible in Sweden, where consumption rates are greater 

and wildlife meat provides tourism cultural ecosystem services. These differences may be 

attributed to existing regulated markets for wildlife meat in Sweden, which increase access to 

wildlife meat for non-hunter consumers who can purchase wildlife meat in stores and at 

restaurants. My results provide insights into the influence of governance on the benefits derived 

from wildlife meat.  

162 

 
 
 
 
Wildlife meat, the meat of free-ranging animals, is consumed throughout the world, and 

has been part of the human diet for an estimated 5 million years (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012; 

Larsen, 2003; Nasi et al., 2008; Stanford & Bunn, 2001). Wildlife meat is a provisional 

ecosystem service that is a healthy source of lean protein, high in energy and essential 

macronutrients (Bureš et al., 2015; Cordain et al., 2002; Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006; Marchello 

et al., 1985). Wildlife meat provides cultural ecosystem services to hunters and those with whom 

they share their wildlife meat (Chapters 3 & 4). The handling and consumption of wildlife meat 

can also provide disservices from disease and contaminants (Alexander et al., 2015; Bell et al., 

2004; Danieli et al., 2012; Gill, 2007; Iqbal et al., 2009; Nelson et al., 2003; Paulsen et al., 2014; 

Ramanzin et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2001; Warenik-Bany et al., 2016). Recently, wildlife meat is 

gaining popularity with consumers because it is seen as healthy, ethical, and environmentally 

friendly (Cerulli, 2012; Corradini et al., 2022). Although research on wildlife meat is growing, 

there are still many gaps in our knowledge about the benefits derived from wildlife meat and 

how they are distributed throughout society (Corradini et al., 2022).  

Governance is the set of processes used to collectively steer society towards particular 

objectives (Peters & Savoie, 2000; Rudolph et al., 2012). Institutions — defined as the formal or 

informal rules, norms, or customs that place constraints on behavior and create incentives for 

action or inaction — are a tool of governance used to help meet those objectives (Crawford and 

Ostrom, 1995). External factors, such as physical and cultural conditions, interact with 

institutions to further influence behavioral outcomes (Polski & Ostrom, 2017). Natural resource 

management utilizes institutions to allocate the benefits and costs from natural systems across 

society (Cumming et al., 2020). Institutions can also define or mediate the relationship between 

society and nature (de Vasconcellos Pegas et al., 2015). Ultimately, institutions influence how 

163 

 
 
wildlife can be harvested and how wildlife meat can be used and distributed in society.  

The management of wildlife and wildlife meat poses complex challenges, particularly 

due to its important economic, cultural, ecological, and nutritional roles in communities around 

the world (Hoffman & Cawthorn, 2012; Mainka & Trivedi, 2002). Harvesting wildlife affects 

wildlife populations, and the consumption and distribution of wildlife meat can pose public 

health risks (Ingram et al., 2021; Paulsen et al., 2014). Although the governance of wildlife meat 

is important for wildlife conservation and public health, governance can also alter human-nature 

relationships in negative or positive ways (de Vasconcellos Pegas et al., 2015). Changes in 

governance can transform how wildlife meat is used and distributed, which can have nutritional, 

ecological, economic, and social implications (LaRocco, 2020). Policies that affect hunters or 

consumers’ access to wildlife meat can result in changes to the provisional and cultural 

ecosystem services that wildlife meat provides (Kaltenborn et al., 2017). For example, the 

policies that prevented the Sans people of Botswana from harvesting wildlife meat directly 

impacted their identity and way of life, because wildlife meat sharing was integral to their culture 

and how social relations were built and maintained (LaRocco, 2020). Understanding how 

governance affects the benefits people receive from wildlife meat is important both for 

conservation and human well-being. 

A market is simply a space of exchange, or more specifically, the institutional 

arrangements that set conditions for the transfer of goods and services (Ménard, 1995). 

Institutions provide the environment in which markets function by outlining the conditions for 

the production and exchange of goods and services (Ménard, 1995). Markets in wildlife meat and 

the policies that govern them comprise an institution that affects the harvest, use, and distribution 

of wildlife meat. Commercializing wildlife meat, or making wildlife meat available through a 

164 

 
 
market or for financial gain, is a contentious issue; markets in wildlife meat are seen as a double-

edged sword (Freese & Trauger, 2000).  

In some areas of the world, unregulated markets in wildlife meat have been identified as a 

critical factor driving the over-exploitation and unsustainable use of wildlife (Bennet & 

Robinson, 2000; VanVliet & Mbazza, 2011; Wilkie & Carpenter, 1999). Bushmeat from the 

tropics and the markets that sell it have been a major focus of research on wildlife meat (Ingram 

et al., 2021). Markets work on a shorter time frame than ecosystems, meaning that market 

demand can be greater than species’ reproductive rates; this mismatch can lead to negative 

outcomes for wildlife conservation (Freese & Trauger, 2000). Wildlife meat can also pose public 

health risks (Paulsen et al., 2014). For example, the consumption of wildlife meat at markets in 

China is thought to have been a potential vehicle for the transmission of SARS-CoV2 to humans, 

which has had devastating effects worldwide (Volpato et al., 2020). The introduction of markets 

in wildlife meat can also have cultural consequences (LaRocco, 2020). Commercializing wildlife 

can cause breakdowns in traditional hunting practices (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). The 

introduction of a market for whale meat in an Inuit community located in northwest Greenland 

had negative consequences because it affected social relations; sharing whale meat benefited the 

community, while selling it benefited only the buyer and seller (Nuttall, 1991). Additionally, 

allowing the commercialization of dead wildlife is seen as a precursor to wildlife privatization, 

which contradicts many countries’ beliefs that wildlife belongs either to no one or everyone 

(Geist, 1988; Vercauteren et al., 2011). 

Despite the potential drawbacks, the economic value of the commercial trade in wildlife 

meat contributes to local and national economies around the world (Rao & McGowan, 2002). 

Wildlife meat markets allow non-hunters to connect to hunting, and wildlife more broadly, 

165 

 
 
though consuming wildlife meat (Corradini et al., 2022; Ljung et al., 2012). Research from 

Sweden found that the consumption of wildlife meat by non-hunters was associated with more 

positive attitudes towards hunting, which poses the question: would increased access to wildlife 

meat lead to more positive attitudes towards hunting? (Ljung et al., 2012). Recently, there has 

been discussions about increasing the availability of wildlife meat though markets in wildlife 

meat (Adams, 2015; Corradini et al., 2022; Krantz, 2015; Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). In the 

United States, some have proposed that allowing the commercial harvest and sale of deer meat 

could help manage abundant deer populations (Thogmartin, 2006; Vercauteren et al., 2011).  

Identifying how governance influences the creation and distribution of the benefits 

provided by wildlife meat—particularly through the presence or absence of markets—contributes 

to current policy deliberations. A better understanding of how wildlife meat markets function is 

needed to inform science-based policy changes, as risks to food safety and security emerge, and 

social transformations alter the way that humans interact with nature (Freese & Trauger, 2000).  

Institutional Analysis and Development Framework 

The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, first developed by 

Ostrom et al. (1994), is a comprehensive method for organizing policy analysis using concepts, 

variables, and diagnostic tools to systematically explore and evaluate policy and build theory 

(Figure 5.1) (Polski & Ostrom, 2017). The IAD provides flexibility, while simplifying the 

complexity of policy analysis under a diverse range of situations and allows researchers to focus 

on areas of interest within larger systems (Namujju et al., 2023; Polski & Ostrom, 2017). The 

first step of the IAD is to define a policy question or problem, which directs the focus of analysis 

and defines the action arena (Polski & Ostrom, 2017). The action arena is the conceptual space 

where actors gather information, consider alternatives, make decisions, take action, and 

166 

 
 
experience consequences (Polski & Ostrom, 2017). Next, the factors that influence the action 

arena (physical and material conditions, community attributes, and rules-in-use) are identified 

and analyzed, followed by the evaluation of patterns of interaction and outcomes. (Polski & 

Ostrom, 2017). Following the IAD framework enables assessment of the performance of a policy 

system and identification of factors that influence outcomes of interest (Polski & Ostrom, 2017). 

The Current Study  

To examine how differences in governance affect the provisional and cultural ecosystem 

services provided by wildlife meat, I compare the use and distribution of wildlife meat in 

Sweden and Michigan, USA. Comparing these two systems enables us to consider how the 

presence or absence of formal, regulated markets in wildlife meat influences the benefits 

provided to society by wildlife. In general, selling wildlife meat harvested from large ungulates 

is illegal in the United States, whereas in Sweden, wildlife meat can be sold by hunters for public 

consumption.  

Most research pertaining to wildlife meat consumption and markets focuses on bushmeat 

from the tropics. Little research has been conducted on these topics in the highly regulated 

management systems of Europe, the United States, and Canada. Guided by the IAD framework, I 

explore the physical and material conditions, community attributes, rules-in-use (including 

interactions), and outcomes for each location. Then I assess how governance, and the external 

factors that influence governance, affect the ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat. This 

chapter does not seek to advocate for or against commercializing wildlife meat, but rather 

explores how commercialization affects the societal distribution of costs and benefits derived 

from wildlife meat.  

167 

 
 
 
Biophysical/Material Conditions 

Michigan  

Michigan (146,570 km²) is a state comprised of two peninsulas, situated in the Great 

Lakes region of the north-central Midwestern United States (Figure 5.2). Most of Michigan is 

either forested (56%) or agricultural land (27%), but also contains wetlands, grasslands, lakes, 

streams, and urban developments (Derosier et al., 2015; NDA, 2023). Most urban development 

and agricultural land are located in the southern part of the state, while the north is dominated by 

coniferous forest (Derosier et al., 2015). The majority of land in Michigan is privately owned 

(79%) and public land access increases the further north you go in the state (MDNR, 2016).  

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are the most widely distributed and abundant 

ungulate species in Michigan, and provide the vast majority of the available wildlife meat 

(Goguen & Riley, 2020; MDNR, 2016). While moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus canadensis), 

and feral swine (wild boar) (Sus scrofa Linnaeus) are present in Michigan, they do not provide 

significant quantities of wildlife meat in Michigan due to small population sizes or hunting 

restrictions (Frawley, 2023; Goguen and Riley, 2020; Harlow, 2022; Largent et al., 2015).  

Sweden  

Sweden, a country located in northwestern Europe along the Baltic Sea, has a land area of 

447,425km2 (Statistics Sweden, n.d.). One-fifth of Sweden’s land area is located above the Arctic 

Circle (Bergström et al, 1992). Overall, 69% of Sweden is covered in forests, while the 

remainder of the landscape is composed of 8% agriculture, 8% grasslands, 7% mires, 5% 

mountains, and 3% urban development (Statistics Sweden, 2019). The coniferous forests of 

northern Sweden are of great economic importance, with 80% used for commercial forestry 

(Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016; Hörnberg, 2001). Despite 78% of the land in Sweden being 

privately owned (Statistics Sweden, 2019), most of Sweden is accessible to the public for 

168 

 
 
 
recreational activities such as hiking, camping, and mushroom and berry picking through The 

Right to Public Access (Allemansrätten; Hellstadius, 2011; Stryamets et al., 2012). However, 

Allemansrätten does not include hunting (Stryamets et al., 2012).  

Moose (Älg; Alces alces), red deer (Kronhjort; Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dovhjort; 

Dama dama), roe deer (Rådjur; Capreolus capreolus), wild boar (Vildsvin; Sus scrofa 

Linnaeus), and European mouflon (Mufflon; Ovis orientalis) are the large ungulate species 

hunted in Sweden (Davis et al., 2016; Elofsson & Häggmark, 2021; Höglund et al., 2013; 

Hörnberg, 2001; Kjellander et al., 2012; Lavsund et al., 2003; Thulin et al., 2015). Moose are 

distributed throughout most of the country, whereas red deer, fallow deer, roe deer, wild boar, 

and mouflon are isolated in regional and local populations, generally located in the southern half 

of the country (Bergström et al, 1992). Mouflon is not native to Sweden and the population 

remains so small that it does not provide significant amounts of wildlife meat (Thulin et al., 

2015).   

Community Attributes  

Michigan  

Michigan’s population was estimated to be 10.1 million people in 2023, with a density of 

69 people per km2 (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). The vast majority (92%) of Michigan’s population 

lives in the southern half of the lower peninsula (MDNR, 2016). In 2022, the total number of 

hunting licenses purchased in Michigan was 660,933, or 7% of the Michigan population 

(USFWS, n.d.). Around 90% of Michigan hunters obtain a license to hunt white-tailed deer 

(Frawley, 2006). In 2021, 593,177 people purchased a deer hunting license in Michigan (6% of 

the population), and an estimated 537,014 went deer hunting (Frawley, 2022). Hunters in the 

United States are generally white, older males, often from rural areas with medium to high levels 

of income (USFWS, 2023); those trends persist in Michigan. Hunting is important to cultural 

169 

 
 
 
heritage in Michigan and contributes an estimated $2.3 billion to the state’s economy (Arnett & 

Southwick, 2015; Langenau 1994). Nationally, 80% of Americans approve of legal hunting. 

Regionally, the highest level of support for hunting can be found in the Midwest (86%), where 

Michigan is located (RM & NSSF, 2019). American support for hunting varies dependent on 

hunters’ motivations: human protection (85%), food (84%), population management (82%), 

sport (50%), or trophy (29%; RM & NSSF, 2019).  

Sweden  

Sweden’s population was 10.5 million people in 2023, with a population density of 26 

people per km2 (Statistics Sweden, n.d.). Most of the Swedish population is concentrated along 

the coast in urban areas; 85% of the population lives on less than 1.5% of the land area (Statistics 

Sweden, 2019). Approximately 300,000 people hunt annually in Sweden, about 3% of the total 

population (Boman et al., 2011; Mattson et al., 2014; Sandström et al., 2013). Swedish hunters 

are generally older males of Swedish nationality, often from rural areas, with a high level of 

education (Lindberg, 2010). Hunting provides an estimated 3 billion SEK (approximately 290 

million USD) per year to the Swedish economy and is important for maintaining cultural and 

social values, particularly in rural areas (Mattson, Boman, & Ericsson, 2008; Willebrand, 2009). 

Swedes are generally supportive of hunting, although, support varies by motivation: 81% are 

supportive when hunting is done for recreation and food, but only 33% when the motivation is 

recreation and sport (Heberlein & Willebrand,1998). Additionally, Swedish attitudes toward 

hunting follow a rural-urban gradient, where attitudes are more positive in rural areas (Heberlein 

& Ericsson, 2005; Ljung et al., 2015).   

Rules in Use  

Regulations that determine how wildlife meat is procured (like wildlife conservation, 

170 

 
 
hunting, and weapon regulations) and rules about wildlife meat influence wildlife meat use and 

distribution. These rules are embedded in the larger governance structure of each location. In the 

following section, I discuss the larger governance structure of Michigan and Sweden, explore 

wildlife ownership, assess rules that pertain to hunting, and conclude with how wildlife meat can 

be distributed in each location. 

Governance Structure 

Michigan. The United States is a constitutional federal republic, where states are the 

sovereign government entity, and the federal government is a limited, delegated government 

(Favre, 2003). At the international level, the United States has entered into international treaties 

and agreements (i.e., the Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD] and the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES]) that were created to influence how wildlife 

is managed (Figure 5.3). What falls under federal control versus state control is determined by 

the U.S. Constitution: in general, the federal government is responsible for what is outlined in the 

constitution, while everything else falls within the state government’s purview (Favre, 2003). 

The federal government is responsible for migratory and endangered species, wildlife on federal 

lands, and commerce as it relates to wildlife (Favre, 2003). The executive departments of 

Commerce (DOC), Agriculture (USDA), and the Interior (DOI) and their respective bureaus 

(such as the U.S. Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [part of the 

USDA]; and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park 

Service [part of the DOI]) along with independent and semi-independent government agencies, 

such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are the main parties responsible for 

wildlife management at the federal level (Organ et al., 2012). The Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) is also responsible for regulating wildlife meat food safety (considered a “non-amenable 

171 

 
 
meat”) at the federal level (USFDA, 2022). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF) is part of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and is responsible for federal 

firearms regulation and enforcement. 

Wildlife in the United States is primarily managed at the state level, meaning there are 50 

similar but distinct systems for wildlife management (Favre, 2003). I focus on Michigan, which 

has a similar government structure to the federal government, consisting of three branches 

(judicial, legislative, and executive). The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 

identifies game species, establishes a framework for licensing, and conveys authority of wildlife 

management and hunting to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the 

Natural Resource Commission (NRC; Rudolph, 2005). The Wildlife Division, under the MDNR, 

is the main government organization responsible for wildlife management in Michigan. To 

insulate management decisions from politics, many states have vested regulatory authority in a 

board or commission comprised of citizens (Organ et al., 2014). Michigan has an NRC 

comprised of seven members of the public appointed by the governor and approved by the 

legislature (Rudolph, 2005). With MDNR and public input, the NRC establishes regulations such 

as hunting seasons, which are found in the Wildlife Conservation Order (WCO; Rudolph, 2005). 

Michigan also has conservation officers (also known as game wardens) who are fully 

commissioned state police officers with the additional authority to enforce MDNR laws and 

regulations (Heffelfinger et al., 2013). The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural 

Development (MDARD) is responsible for food safety at the state level. Local police 

departments are responsible for issuing firearms permits when applicable. Landowners, hunters, 

and consumers are also responsible for decisions that affect the amount of meat harvested, how it 

is distributed, and how it is consumed in Michigan.  

172 

 
 
Sweden. Sweden’s government is a constitutional monarchy. At the international level, 

Sweden has entered into international treaties and agreements (i.e., the Convention on Biological 

Diversity [CBD] and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species [CITES]) 

that influence how wildlife is managed (Figure 5.4). At the supernational level, Sweden is a 

member of the European Union (EU), which means that Sweden has delegated some decision-

making powers to the EU (Hansson-Forman et al., 2018). Some EU regulations influence 

wildlife management and food safety standards. At the national level, Sweden has three branches 

of government: the judicial branch; the legislative branch (parliament or Riksdag); and the 

executive branch made of the monarch (a symbolic figure), the prime minister, and government 

ministries (SEPA, 2014). The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) is 

the main supervisory authority responsible for hunting and game management, although other 

organizations such as the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket), the Swedish Forest 

Agency (Skogsstyrelsen), and the Swedish National Veterinary Institute (Statens 

veterinärmedicinska anstalt) also play a role in wildlife management (Hansson-Forman et al., 

2021; SEPA, 2014). The Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket) is responsible for 

the regulation of food in Sweden, and this includes wildlife meat. The Swedish Association of 

Hunting and Wildlife Management (Svenska Jägareförbundet) is a non-profit organization that 

has been delegated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to be responsible for the 

practical management of hunting and wildlife conservation (SEPA, 2014). 

At the regional level, Sweden is divided into 21 counties (län) and 290 municipalities 

(kommuner). County Administration Boards (länsstyrelserna) make decisions about regional 

wildlife management and plan or collaborate with Wildlife Management Delegations, which are 

a collaborative body that decides on wildlife management guidelines and objectives at the county 

173 

 
 
level (Hansson-Forman et al., 202; SEPA, 2014).  

Some wildlife species are managed at an even more local level. For example, moose are 

managed at the level of Moose Management Areas that are led by Moose Management Groups 

(Dressel, 2020). Moose Management Groups are comprised of hunters, landowners, and, when 

applicable, Indigenous Sami people (who have the exclusive rights to herd reindeer, hunt, and 

fish on 50 % of the land surface), who set 3-year adaptive management plans (Dressel, 2020; 

Trop, 2013). Red deer can also be managed in Red Deer Management Areas established by 

hunters in collaboration with the County Administrative Board (SJ, n.d.). Sweden has hunting 

supervisors/game wardens (Jakttillsynsmän) who monitor compliance with hunting laws and 

regulations (Jaktlag 1987:259). Regulations, training, and equipment for hunting supervisors are 

issued by the Police Authority (Sjöström, 2000). 

At the local level, police issue firearms permits and municipalities regulate the food 

businesses that sell wildlife meat. Landowners, hunters, hunting teams, and consumers are also 

responsible for any decisions that affect the harvest, distribution, and consumption of wildlife 

meat in Sweden. 

Wildlife Ownership 

Michigan. Wildlife in the United States is held in trust by the federal or state government 

for the benefit of current and future generations: This principle, known as The Public Trust 

Doctrine, derives from common law (Organ et al., 2014). Common law forms from the rulings of 

court cases and evolves though additional court decisions (Organ. & Mahoney, 2007). The 

seminal 1842 U.S. Supreme Court case of Martin v. Waddell traced the basis of U.S. law back to 

the Magna Carta (1215) and Roman Law, which defined wildlife as common property (res 

communis), which could not be owned (res nullius) (Batcheller et al., 2010; Geist, & Organ, 

174 

 
 
2004; Organ. & Mahoney, 2007). In 1855, the U.S. Supreme Court case Smith v. Maryland 

ceded the power to regulate the natural resources within a state’s boundaries to that particular 

state, emphasizing the state’s role as trustee (Organ et al., 2014).  

Common law can change based on court rulings; however, the Public Trust Doctrine has 

been codified into statutory law in some states (Organ et al., 2014; Organ & Mahoney, 2007). In 

Michigan, the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act (Section 40105) states, “All 

animals found in this state, whether resident or migratory and whether native or introduced, are 

the property of the people of the state, and the taking of all animals shall be regulated by the 

department as provided by law” (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994). 

To further this point, the Wildlife Conservation Order states, “Live game taken from the wild 

shall not be possessed” (WCO, 1989).  

Although all living wildlife in Michigan belongs to everyone in the state, dead wildlife 

can be possessed by the person who kills them, if that person holds a legal permit or license to do 

so (Farve, 2003). The Wildlife Conservation Order states that “Game lawfully taken, acquired, 

and transported may be possessed by any person” (WCO, 1989). Individuals can harvest wildlife 

through hunting and transfer it into their possession. Dead wildlife, which was not harvested 

though hunting, is also regulated by the state. For example, non-game animals that are not 

protected or endangered species that are killed by a non-intentional vehicle crash may be 

possessed without a permit (WCO, 1989). Some game animals, including deer, that are killed by 

a non-intentional vehicle crash may be possessed, but this requires a free salvage permit from the 

MDNR or a police officer (WCO, 1989).  

Sweden. For thousands of years Swedish wildlife were considered common property, 

with no formal regulation of hunting (Bergström et al, 1992). Today, this customary historical 

175 

 
 
 
practice prevails; no one owns living wildlife (Brainerd & Kaltenborn, 2010; Hawley et al., 

1983; von Essen et al., 2017). However, dead wildlife may be possessed (Brainerd & 

Kaltenborn, 2010). In 1789, King Gustaf III ruled that all commoners who owned taxable land 

held the right to conduct hunting on their own property (Bergström et al, 1992). Under current 

Swedish laws (Jaktlag 1987:259), landowners possess the hunting rights to their property, which 

includes the right to any wildlife found dead or killed in contexts other than hunting (Brainerd & 

Kaltenborn, 2010; Hawley et al., 1983). However, there are exceptions for certain protected 

animal species (also called game belonging to the state or vilt som tillfaller staten) which belong 

to the government for science and teaching purposes when they are found dead, need care due to 

injury, or are killed not within hunting regulations (Jaktförordning 1987:905). 

Hunting  

Michigan. To harvest wildlife in Michigan, individuals must take a hunter’s safety 

course, obtain a hunting weapon, pay a license fee, and find land on which to hunt. Individuals 

born after January 1st, 1960 must complete a hunter’s safety course and present this certification 

to purchase a license (MDNR, 2023). This course consists of a background section with 

information about hunting and wildlife conservation, and an in-person field day training that 

includes a classroom session, outdoor shooting, blood trailing, demonstrations of tree stand 

safety, and survival skills (MDNR, n.d.a).  

In Michigan, hunters can harvest deer using rifles, shotguns, handguns, muzzleloaders, 

crossbows, or bows (compound, recurve, or long), depending on their location in the state 

(MDNR, 2023). In the United States, laws constraining firearm ownership are limited, with 

restrictions existing for those convicted of a crime or those deemed unsafe to be in possession of 

a firearm (Gun Control Act, 1968). Currently, in Michigan, background checks are required to 

176 

 
 
own handguns, but not to own long guns like rifles, shotguns, or muzzleloaders. However, recent 

legislation requires a background check for all firearms sales in the state (Public Act 19 of 2023, 

2023). There are no limitations on owning archery equipment. 

In Michigan, hunters must purchase a sport card and a base license that are priced based 

on age: $6 USD for a Junior, $11 USD for an Adult, and $5 USD for a Senior (MDNR, 2023). 

This base license is valid for small game only; additional licenses are required for other species, 

including deer (MDNR, 2023). Base license species have seasons, or daily or seasonal harvest 

limits (MDNR, 2023). Deer harvesting is further restricted by tag allotment, which requires a 

$20 USD tag per animal harvested (MDNR, 2023). Kill tags must be affixed to harvested deer 

and hunters cannot harvest deer without a physical kill tag in their possession (MDNR, 2023). 

Deer harvesting is therefore limited by the number of tags an individual can purchase, as well as 

other rules regarding location and antler status. (More detailed information on deer hunting 

regulations and seasons can be found in the 2023 Michigan Hunting Regulations Summary: 

MDNR, 2023).  

Hunters can hunt on private land either as the landowner or with the written or verbal 

permission of the landowner. Landowners retain no right to the wildlife harvested on their 

property (WCO, 1989). Despite access to public lands, 89% of deer are harvested on private land 

while only 11% harvested on public land (Frawley, 2022).  

Michigan’s deer hunting season lasts from September to January, although the majority 

of the harvest occurs during the two-week regular firearm season from November 15th – 30th 

(Frawley, 2022). Hunting is generally done individually, either by stalking, where an individual 

is on the move and tries to sneak up on a deer, or stand hunting, where an individual waits in a 

blind for a deer to pass by. Dogs cannot be used to hunt, but can be used to find wounded 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
animals if kept on leash. The person with a dog cannot carry a weapon, unless accompanied by a 

licensed dog tracker (MDNR, 2023). 

Sweden. To hunt in Sweden, individuals must pass a hunting proficiency test, obtain a 

firearm permit and a firearm, pay a hunting fee, and find land to hunt on (either their own or 

leased). This proficiency test includes a theoretical test on wildlife and hunting knowledge and a 

technical exam that tests an individual’s shooting accuracy and precision, as well as their firearm 

safety (SJ, n.d.).  In order to obtain a firearm for hunting, individuals need a permit issued by the 

local police, which is only granted to those who can establish a genuine need (hunting is 

considered a genuine need) and have passed a hunter’s proficiency test (Bergström et al, 1992). 

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency also collects an annual license fee of 400 SEK 

($35 USD) which is required for hunting (SEPA, n.d.). Hunters must carry their hunting license 

with them while hunting and show their hunting license upon request to supervisory authorities 

or the person who holds the hunting rights (Jaktförordning 1987:905). Moose hunters must pay a 

fee to the County Administration Board for each moose killed, which goes into a county-wide 

moose conservation fund (Jaktförordning 1987:905).  

In Sweden, hunting rights belong to the landowner, but can be transferred to another 

individual (Bergström et al, 1992; Sandström et al., 2013). However, the Sami (indigenous 

reindeer herders) have the right to hunt on traditional lands, so some areas have parallel rights 

(Sandström, 2012). Thus, to hunt in Sweden, you must either own land to hunt on or have an 

agreement with a landowner to hunt on their property and be transferred the hunting rights.  

Animals in Sweden can only be hunted if there is a specific hunting season for that 

animal (Sandström, 2012). The primary legislations that regulate hunting in Sweden are Jaktlag 

(1987:259) and Jaktförordning (1987:905) (Bergström et al, 1992). In general, the government 

178 

 
 
decides which species can be hunted and sets hunting seasons, although stakeholders are 

involved at multiple levels in this process (Bergström et al, 1992). Some species have open 

seasons, while others are more tightly regulated at a county level (Bergström et al, 1992). Most 

hunting occurs in the autumn and winter, from August to February (SJ, n.d.).   

Hunting for large ungulates takes multiple forms in Sweden. Individuals can partake in 

stalking/stealth hunting, where they walk and try to sneak up on an animal, or vigil/guard 

hunting, where an individual waits, often in a stand, for animals to pass by. Hunters can also hunt 

in teams. Moose, for example, are typically hunted in organized teams with many hunters 

(Hawley et al, 1983). Hunting in a team allows landowners to pool their land together to make a 

larger hunting ground or enables hunters to afford leasing a hunting ground. Hunting teams 

provide hunters with the capital necessary to harvest and process large animals, such as vehicles 

to transport moose from the field or slaughtering facilities. Hunting teams often place individuals 

in stands and attempt to drive the animal past a waiting hunter (Hawley et al., 1983). Hunting 

large ungulates, moose in particular, often utilizes a dog to sniff out the location of the prey and 

move it slowly and calmly (SJ, n.d.).  

Team hunting in Sweden is an organized and collective activity that emphasizes 

reciprocal social interactions and helps to maintain a sense of community (Gunnarsdotter, 2008; 

Mattson, Boman, Ericsson, & Paulrud, 2008). Only rifles or shotguns are allowed for hunting 

and there are specific rules for what type of weapon and ammunition can be used for which 

species and where (Bergström et al, 1992).  While hunting in Sweden follows formal rules and 

regulations, there are also ethical guidelines and customary traditions rooted in rural Swedish 

culture, which ensure safety, cooperation, and the wellbeing of animals (Bergström et al, 1992). 

Because Swedish landowners own the hunting rights to their land, they can sell those hunting 

179 

 
 
rights for profit; this is referred to as commercial or tourist hunting (Sillanpaa, 2008).  For 

example, large farms/estates (Större gårdar) allow hunters from within Sweden or abroad to pay 

to hunt there (Krantz, 2015).  

Distribution Rules   

Michigan. Wildlife populations in the United States declined during the 1800s, due to 

human demographic changes (e.g., urbanization, population growth, etc.), advances in 

technology (e.g., railways, refrigeration, etc.), habitat degradation, and harvest pressure with 

limited regulations governing harvests (Jacobson et al., 2010, Organ et al, 2012). During this 

time of plentiful harvest, markets for wildlife meat and other animal parts thrived (Organ et al, 

2012). These markets and the hunters who participated in them are often blamed for later 

declines in wildlife populations; thus, their elimination is seen as an essential step in U.S. 

wildlife conservation (Organ et al., 2012). In 1900, the Lacey Act was passed, which made it 

unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, buy, or possess fish, wildlife, and plants taken 

possessed, or transported in violation of any laws (Nasi et al., 2008). Essentially, this act enabled 

wealthy elites to restrict the commercial trade in wildlife in favor of recreational hunting, by 

regulating wildlife markets into extinction (Heberlein, 1991; Vercauteren et al., 2011). Hunting 

shifted from an activity for food or economic gain to a leisure or recreational activity done for 

sport (Heberlein, 1991). Eliminating markets in wildlife meat and other animal parts in order to 

deny dead wildlife economic value remains a key principle of current day wildlife conservation 

in the United States (Geist, 1988). Markets are also seen as a way of privatizing wildlife, which 

contradicts the concept of wildlife as a public resource under the Public Trust Doctrine (Geist, 

1988).  

However, not all markets for wildlife meat and other parts were eliminated. Mainly, 

180 

 
 
 
markets for wildlife that are considered game species or are desirable for sport hunting, such as 

deer, were limited. For example, there is a highly regulated and active market for pelts from 

furbearers (Organ et al., 2012). The United States also has a highly regulated commercial fishing 

industry, yet individual recreational anglers cannot sell the fish they catch (Freese & Trauger, 

2000). Markets for reptiles and amphibians are not always regulated closely (Organ et al., 2012). 

For example, the Western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) has undergone extensive 

commercialization, with a highly structured network of dealers and hunters (Adams et al., 1994; 

Fitzgerald & Painter, 2000). While there have been recent attempts to introduce commercial deer 

harvesting in some states in the United States, none have been successful (Adams, 2015). 

Since interstate commerce is regulated at the federal level, the Lacey Act restricts wildlife 

markets at a national level. However, since most wildlife is managed at the state level, each state 

can also have its own regulations for the sale of wildlife meat. In Michigan, the Wildlife 

Conservation Order (Section 4.3 Buying and Selling) states the rules pertaining to the sale of 

wildlife meat and other animal parts in the state of Michigan (WCO, 1989). Fur-bearing animals 

and their parts, if lawfully harvested (in Michigan or elsewhere), may be bought or sold (WCO, 

1989). The teeth, claws, flesh, bones, or internal organs of wildlife other than furbearers cannot 

be bought or sold (WCO, 1989). The fur, hide, pelt, plumage, or skin of wildlife that was 

lawfully harvested by a hunter or from a permitted captive wildlife facility, may be sold by the 

hunter who harvested it or by the facility permit holder (WCO, 1989). A dealer in meats, 

restaurateur, private club manager, shooting preserve licensee, or sponsor of a field dog trial may 

sell for food the carcasses of fur-bearing animals, wildlife meat from a permitted captive wildlife 

facility, or wildlife meat that was lawfully imported (WCO, 1989). In short, this means that 

venison harvested by a hunter cannot be bought or sold; the only way for deer hunters to 

181 

 
 
distribute their meat is by gifting it or sharing it with others in their social network (Goguen et 

al., 2018; Goguen & Riley, 2020) (Figure 5.5). 

Because wildlife meat is not generally available for sale in the United States, there are 

few, if any, safety standards for the handing and consumption of free ranging wildlife meat 

harvested and processed by hunters (Hedman et al., 2020). At the federal level, the FDA Food 

Code 2022 outlines food safety standards for wildlife meat from both commercial and wild 

harvested sources (Byrd et al., 2015; FDA, 2022). To be sold commercially in the United States, 

deer meat must be farm-raised, meaning venison available in stores or restaurants in the United 

States is either imported or from the cervid farming industry (Byrd et al., 2015). In Michigan, the 

Food Law Act 92 of 2000 states the rules and regulations for the food supply chain. It regulates 

wildlife meat under just two circumstances: wildlife meat processors and wild game dinners 

(Food Law, 2000). In Michigan, there are meat processors that are regulated by the state; some 

will process a hunter’s deer for a fee during the hunting season. During the 2021–2022 season, 

43% of hunters used a commercial processor for their deer (Frawley, 2022). The Food Law Act 

92 of 2000 sets the rules for safety and hygiene when processing a wild deer, and also states that 

any sausage made from wild game cannot be sold and must be labeled "not for sale" (Food Law, 

2000).  

Deer donation programs exist throughout the United States to provide venison to those in 

need (Hildreth et al., 2011). In Michigan, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 

Act (Section 324.43540a, 1994) states that the MDNR must implement a program to distribute 

wildlife meat to people in need, called the Sportsmen Against Hunger Program. The Sportsmen 

Against Hunger Program uses commercial processors to handle donated venison, which is then 

distributed to organizations that provide meals or food to people free of charge. Over the 2022 

182 

 
 
hunting season, they collected 51,479 kg of venison (MSAH, n.d.). Donated venison that was 

harvested from areas where chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis are present in the 

deer herd must be tested prior to distribution (MDNR, n.d.b). All donated venison is additionally 

scanned for metal fragments (J. Presgrove, personal communication, December, 20, 2023).  

Wild game dinners are a popular event during the hunting season, particularly in rural 

Michigan (Chapter 3). The Food Law Act 92 of 2000 states that wildlife meat provided by a 

hunter can be used at wild game dinners hosted by a charitable, religious, fraternal, or other 

nonprofit organization, as long as that wildlife meat is served to its members, as part of a fund-

raising event, or to those in need, free of charge (Food Law, 2000). However, if wildlife meat 

harvested by a hunter is being served, the following notice must be posted at the entrance to the 

dinner: "The wild game served at this facility has not been subject to state or federal inspection” 

(Food Law, 2000).  

Sweden. In Sweden, hunters may keep their wildlife meat for household consumption, 

share or sell their wildlife meat to their social network, or sell it to a game handling faculty or 

food business (Figure 5.6). However, it must be noted that wildlife meat belongs to the hunting 

rights holder (Brainerd & Kaltenborn, 2010). Generally, the transfer of wildlife meat is agreed 

upon when hunting rights are transferred; however, every situation is unique and examples of 

how this occurs are diverse (Brainerd & Kaltenborn, 2010). The landowner may retain some 

wildlife meat harvested from their property or be gifted it by a hunting team or hunter. Wildlife 

meat harvested by a hunting team is distributed among team members. Often teams have 

established, sometimes elaborate, rules for how this distribution occurs, which are frequently 

related to participation in hunting team activities and roles during the hunt (Chapter 4).   

Once an individual hunter is in possession of wildlife meat, it is up to them to determine 

183 

 
 
what to do with it. Some restrictions exist, however, for animals commonly infected with 

trichinella. An estimated 20% of wildlife meat harvested in Sweden enters the market through 

game handling facilities, while 80% of the meat harvested stays with hunters (Wiklund & 

Malmfors, 2014). What hunters consume in their household or share with other household 

members is not regulated (SNFA, 2007). Hunters can also share, gift, or sell their meat to 

members of their social network, such as friends, family, neighbors, or coworkers (Chapter 4). 

Most of the wildlife meat harvested in Sweden is distributed within hunters’ social networks, 

making its use and distribution difficult to track (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). 

Under certain conditions, hunters can sell the wildlife meat they harvest to private 

persons, local food businesses (e.g., restaurants, stores, etc.), or game handling facilities (i.e., 

specialized processors for wildlife meat; SNFA, 2007). The market for wildlife meat in Sweden 

must follow EU Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, which are 

general rules for food hygiene of animal origin for food business operators. EU law states that 

hunters can sell small quantities of the wildlife meat they harvest, and each member state of the 

EU is responsible for establishing national rules for hunters selling small quantities of wildlife 

meat (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). In the Food Ordinance 2005:20, the Swedish Food Agency 

defines small quantities and other regulations for those who wish to sell their wildlife meat 

(LIVSFS 2005:20). The Swedish Food Agency quantifies wildlife meat in units: 1 big game unit 

equals 1 moose, 3 red deer or fallow deer, or 10 roe deer, while one small game unit equals one 

small game animal. A small quantity is defined as 25 big game units or 10,000 small game units 

with the skin on; or 1 big game unit or 1,000 small game units butchered (without the skin on) 

(SNFA, 2007). Hunters’ sale of small quantities are excluded from EU Regulation (EC) No 

852/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. Hunters can sell small quantities of wildlife meat to 

184 

 
 
private persons and local food businesses, and unlimited quantities to game handling facilities 

(SNFA, 2007). Hunters are also responsible for ensuring they do not exceed these limits (SNFA, 

2007). 

In general, Sweden does not have inspection requirements for small quantities of wildlife 

meat sold to private persons; however, inspections are recommended (SNFA, 2007). Wildlife 

meat sold by hunters directly to local food businesses should be inspected by someone trained to 

inspect wildlife meat, either at the food business or a trained food inspector (SNFA, 2007). Food 

businesses that sell wildlife meat obtained directly from hunters need to be registered with their 

municipal government and must follow the food safety standards for handling wildlife meat 

(SNFA, 2007). Hunters are responsible for the safety of the wildlife meat they share and sell, 

according to EU Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 (SNFA, 2007; Hedman et al., 2020). Hunters 

can only sell small quantities within Sweden; wildlife meat sold outside of Sweden must meet 

EU regulations, which means it must be processed at a game handling facility (SNFA, 2007). 

Hunters that sell more than small quantities of wildlife meat are considered food businesses and 

must be registered and follow food business regulations from both the Swedish Food Agency and 

the EU (SNFA, 2007).  

Game handling facilities are slaughterhouses for wildlife meat that have been approved 

by the Swedish Food Agency and meet the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 and 

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, as well as other Swedish Food Agency requirements (Clarin & 

Karlsson, 2013). Wildlife meat processed by a game handling faculty can be sold within Sweden 

or exported to other countries (Wiklund and Malmfors, 2014). There are currently 186 game 

handling facilities approved for wildlife meat in Sweden (SNFA, n.d.). Wildlife carcasses must 

be sold to game handling facilities with the skin on (SNFA, 2007). Additionally, if a hunter’s 

185 

 
 
carcasses were not initially inspected by a game investigator (viltundersökare), their harvest must 

be delivered to the game handing facility with the head and internal organs (SNFA, 2007).  

Some game handling facilities have their own stores (in-person or online) and their own 

restaurants, where they sell the wildlife meat they process. Some large farms/estates (Större 

gårdar) that harvest wildlife from their property may also have their own game handing facilities, 

stores (gårdsbutik), and restaurants. Game handling facilities also sell the wildlife meat they 

process to other food businesses, such as restaurants, grocery stores, catering businesses, or 

wholesalers (Clarin & Karlsson, 2013). Wholesalers buy wildlife meat from game handling 

facilities and sell it to food businesses or individuals. Sometimes, wildlife meat from game 

handling facilities is purchased for public food (offentlig mat) for use in nursing homes or 

schools (Krantz, 2015). Some game handling facilities also process wildlife meat for individual 

hunters (Clarin & Karlsson, 2013).  

One exception to these rules is wildlife meat that has been harvested from species known 

to be commonly infected with Trichinella, like bear, boar, and beaver. Currently, the meat from 

these animals must go to a game handling facility and should not be shared or sold beyond the 

household (SNFA, 2007). It is recommended that hunters test any wildlife meat harvested from 

these species for Trichinella, even if it is only intended for household consumption (Clarin & 

Karlsson, 2013). However, in 2024, new regulations for wild boar will take effect, making it 

possible for hunters who have undergone training on handling wild boar to sell wild boar meat 

directly to private individuals (SNFA, n.d.).  

During interviews, Swedish hunters were asked about selling wildlife meat (Chapter 4). 

Some hunters had strong opinions on not selling their meat, while others simply preferred to use 

it themselves or didn’t find selling it “worth the hassle.” Generally, hunters preferred to “fill the 

186 

 
 
freezer” before considering selling wildlife meat. Multiple hunters mentioned only selling when 

a surplus was present or in an emergency to prevent waste. Both team and individual hunters 

discussed using the money from selling wildlife meat to offset hunting costs; some teams even 

charged their members for wildlife meat for this reason. Some hunters saw selling their wildlife 

meat as a way of allowing more people to enjoy it. 

While the Swedish market for wildlife meat is relatively small overall, there are 

movements to increase the amount of wildlife meat available for sale (Krantz, 2015; Wiklund & 

Malmfors, 2014). An (often intentionally) short supply chain means that wildlife meat passes 

through the hands of only a few intermediaries in route to the final consumer (Clarin & Karlsson, 

2013). Some people hypothesize that the market may be small because of a lack of consumer 

knowledge about wildlife meat or because hunters lack knowledge about regulations (Clarin & 

Karlsson, 2013; Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). In my research, I found that some hunters were 

unsure or unwilling to discuss the details of selling wildlife meat because they didn’t want to 

unknowingly state that they had broken a law. Southern Sweden has more opportunities for 

wildlife meat to enter the market, because there are more game handling facilities and estates that 

specialize in harvesting wildlife for profit (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). 

Swedish markets in wildlife meat face issues with logistics, capacity, storage, and costs 

(Krantz, 2015). There are also concerns about food hygiene and quality from hunters who sell 

small quantities because there is very little oversight (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Some 

believe that hunters’ knowledge of meat quality is not sufficient and slaughtering capabilities are 

not optimal, compared to game handling facilities (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Game handling 

facilities complain about poor shots and incorrectly handled carcasses that cause wasted meat 

(Krantz, 2015). Some game handling facilities are downsizing due to profitability issues (Krantz, 

187 

 
 
 
2015). Hunters have expressed concern about the overall cost, as well as transportation and the 

accessibility of market access points (Krantz, 2015). In its study of wildlife meat products on the 

market in Sweden, the Swedish Food Agency found that, of the 44 products they tested, 43% 

contained animal species different than the packaging indicated (Fäger et al., 2018). The Swedish 

Food Agency suspects that most of these issues relate to importer handling or cross 

contamination (Fäger et al., 2018). The Swedish Food Agency also tested wildlife meat from 

game handling facilities for lead. Of the 100 samples taken from 47 different facilities, 36% 

contained lead from ammunition and 15% exceeded the EU limits for lead levels in domestic 

animal meats (Kautto & Bjerselius, 2020).  Currently, the EU does not have a limit for lead 

levels in wildlife meat, but the Swedish Food Agency recommends that the limit for domestic 

meats be applied to wildlife meat as well (Kautto & Bjerselius, 2020).   

Outcomes  

Provisional Ecosystem Services  

Wildlife Meat Production. 

Michigan. An average of 380,666 white-tailed deer were harvested annually over a 10-

year period (2011–2021) in Michigan, providing an estimated 13.1 million kg of venison per 

year (Table 5.1). This results in a per capita venison production of 1.2 kg per person per year or 

24.4 kg per deer hunter per year. The Michigan landscape yielded an average of 89.3 kg venison 

per km2 annually. The venison production of Michigan hunters appears to have been relatively 

stable for the past 10 years. 

Sweden. An average of 355,461 animals from the top five meat-producing ungulate 

species (moose, red deer, fallow deer, roe deer, and wild boar) were harvested annually over a 

10-year period (2011–2021) in Sweden, providing an estimated 13.2 million kg of wildlife meat 

188 

 
 
per year. This results in a per capita wildlife meat production of 1.3 kg per person per year or 

43.9 kg per hunter per year. The Swedish landscape yielded an average of 29.3 kg of wildlife 

meat per km2 annually. Moose provided 57% of the wildlife meat produced in Sweden, followed 

in volume by wild boar (25%), roe deer (9%), fallow deer (7%), and red deer (3%; Table 5.2). 

Total wildlife meat production in Sweden fluctuated, but remained relatively stable during the 

10-year period despite large variations in individual species’ harvest. Moose was the only species 

whose overall harvest rates declined from 2011–2021; all other species experienced an increase 

in harvest. Most notable were fallow deer and wild boar harvests, which more than doubled over 

the 10-year period. The wildlife meat production of Swedish hunters appears to be relatively 

stable, but changing wildlife populations suggests the type of wildlife meat provided may be 

shifting.  

Distribution and Consumption Patterns.  

Michigan. An estimated 75% of the total Michigan population and 59% of the Michigan 

non-hunter population have consumed wildlife meat at least once in their life (Goguen & Riley, 

2020). Venison from white-tailed deer is the most popular type of wildlife meat consumed in 

Michigan (Goguen & Riley, 2020). Of the general population, 28% reported never having 

consumed venison; 23% reported consuming venison, but not in the past 12 months; 20% 

reported consuming it once or twice in the past 12 months; 15% reported consuming it 3–10 

times in the past 12 months; and 14% reported consuming it less than10 times in the past 12 

months (Goguen & Riley, 2020). Of the non-hunters in Michigan, an estimated 43% had never 

consumed venison; 23% reported consuming venison, but not in the past 12 months; 19% 

reported consuming it once or twice in the past 12 months; 11% reported consuming it 3–10 

times in the past 12 months; and 4% reported consuming it less than10 times in the past 12 

189 

 
 
months (Goguen & Riley, 2020). Of the 49% of the general population who consumed venison 

in the 12 months prior to the survey, 56% received it from family members who did not live 

within their household; 54% from friends, neighbors, or coworkers; 26% from members of their 

household; and 7% received it from a community event or game dinner (Goguen & Riley, 2020).  

Of the 34% of non-hunters who consumed venison annually, 61% received it from friends, 

neighbors, or coworkers; 59% received it from family members who did not live within their 

household; 20% received it from members of their immediate household; and 5% received it 

from a community event or game dinner (Goguen & Riley, 2020). A study of Michigan hunters 

found that of hunters who harvested deer, 85% reported sharing their venison with an average of 

5.6 people (Goguen et al., 2018). Hunters primarily shared their venison within tight social 

networks: 69% reported sharing with members of their households; 52% with relatives; and 50% 

with friends, neighbors, or coworkers (Goguen et al., 2018).  

Sweden. Wildlife meat is consumed across Swedish society and consumption rates have 

remained relatively constant since the 1980s (Ljung et al., 2015). Seventy percent of the Swedish 

population reports consuming wildlife meat at least once a year (Ericsson & Heberlein, 2002). 

Another study found similar consumption patterns, reporting that 68% of Swedes consume 

wildlife meat at least once per year (Hellstadius, 2011). Monthly consumption frequencies are 

less, reported at 22% (Ljung et al, 2014). Non-hunters also have relatively high annual 

consumption rates: 65% of non-hunters consume wildlife meat at least once per year (49% 1-2 

times per year, 12% greater than 1 per month, 4% greater than 1 per week; Ljung et al., 2012).  

Wildlife meat consumption in Sweden follows a north-south gradient, where more 

wildlife meat is consumed in the north than the south (Ljung et al, 2014). The four northernmost 

counties in Sweden had the greatest consumption rates per month—57% in Norrbotten, 48% in 

190 

 
 
Vasterbotten, 62% in Jamtland, and 39% in Västernorrland—compared to the 16% reported in 

Stockholm, located further south in the country (Ljung et al., 2014). Non-hunter consumption 

frequency also follows a north-south gradient in Sweden, where non-hunters in the north eat 

wildlife meat more frequently than non-hunters in Stockholm (Non-hunters in Stockholm: 50% 

yearly, 12% monthly, 38% never; Non-hunters in northern Sweden: 40% yearly, 41% monthly, 

19% never; Ljung et al., 2015). Moose meat is the most popular wildlife meat—59% of Swedes 

reported consuming moose meat at least once a year, followed by roe deer (40%), wild boar 

(33%), fallow deer (13%), and red deer (12%; Ljung et al., 2014). Swedes obtain moose meat in 

a variety of ways: 36% reported receiving it from friends, 31% from family, 29% from a store, 

and 21% from a restaurant (Ljung et al., 2014).  In northern Sweden, the most common source of 

moose meat was friends or family; in Stockholm, people were more likely to obtain it from a 

store or restaurant than a hunter (Ljung et al, 2014).  

I conservatively estimate that 2.6 million kg of wildlife meat harvested in Sweden ends 

up on the market, while other estimates edge closer to 4.0 million kg of wildlife meat (Wiklund 

& Malmfors, 2014).  Approximately 35% of the wildlife meat on the market is moose meat 

(Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Wild boar makes up an estimated 31% of the market and deer 

(unspecified species) another 20% (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Sweden exports an estimated 

1.5 million kg of wildlife meat (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Sweden imports an estimated 1.8 

million kg of wildlife meat (excluding rabbits, hares, and pigs) and 2.6 million kg of wild boar 

meat (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Companies that sell wildlife meat in Sweden also import 

venison from New Zealand (Wiklund and Malmfors, 2014). Vitally, not all wildlife meat on the 

market in Sweden is harvested from Swedish forests, and it is unknown how savvy consumers 

are to the differences in source (Wiklund and Malmfors, 2014). 

191 

 
 
Cultural Ecosystem Services  

Michigan. In Michigan, venison provides hunters with cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of social relations, identity, cultural heritage, education, knowledge systems, and spiritual 

and religious (Chapter 3).   

Sweden. In Sweden wildlife meat provides hunters cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of social relations, identity, cultural heritage, education, knowledge systems, spiritual and 

religious, and recreation and tourism (Chapter 4).  

Synthesis 

Biophysical/Material Conditions  

Sweden’s land area is three times larger than Michigan and located farther north (Table 

5.3). Despite the differences in latitude, both have a similar distribution of habitats: coniferous 

forest dominates the north, grasslands and deciduous forests the south, with wetlands, rivers, and 

lakes spread throughout (Bergström et al, 1992; Derosier et al., 2015). While the southern part of 

Michigan has significantly more agricultural land than Sweden, the northern forests of Sweden 

are far more heavily cultivated for timber production (Derosier et al., 2015; Hansen & 

Malmaeus, 2016). Private land ownership is nearly identical in both Sweden and Michigan. 

However, where Swedish private land is open to all for recreational activities (excluding 

hunting), private land in Michigan is not open to others without permission from the landowner 

(MDNR, 2016; Statistics Sweden, 2019; Stryamets et al., 2012). The accessibility of land for 

hunting is discussed in detail later in this chapter. Similar large ungulate species reside in both 

systems: moose, elk, deer, and wild boar. In Swedish, moose are called Älg, which sounds like, 

and often gets translated to, elk; however, the Swedish red deer (Cervus elaphus) is more closely 

related to the north American elk (wapiti; Cervus canadensis), as they are separate species within 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
the genus Cervus (Hu et al., 2019). One large ungulate species makes up a vast majority of 

Michigan’s large ungulate biomass, whereas Sweden is a multi-species system.  

Community Attributes  

Although the human population of Michigan and Sweden are similar in size, the 

population density in Sweden is much lower than in Michigan (Statistics Sweden, n.d.; U.S. 

Census Bureau, n.d.). Both populations are heavily focused in one area—for example, the south 

of Michigan or the coast and south of Sweden—leaving large swathes of sparsely-populated land 

(MDNR, 2016; Statistics Sweden, 2019). Michigan has twice as many hunters as Sweden, but 

overall, the total proportion of the population that hunts is low in both locations (Boman et al., 

2011; USFWS, n.d.). Hunting likely contributes more to Michigan’s overall economy than to 

Sweden’s (Arnett & Southwick, 2015; Langenau, 1994; Willebrand, 2009). Hunting is culturally 

important in both locations, particularly in rural areas (Arnett & Southwick, 2015; Langenau, 

1994; Willebrand, 2009). General population attitudes toward hunting are similar in both 

locations and depend on the perceived motivations of hunters (Heberlein & Willebrand, 1998; 

RM & NSSF, 2019).  

Rules in Use 

Governance Structure  

Although both governments function democratically, there are some notable differences, 

and a few similarities, when comparing their overall structure. Both locations are subject to 

international treaties and agreements. While Sweden technically remains a monarchy, the 

monarch is largely symbolic and the government is run democratically with a parliament. Both 

locations have a delegated government—in Sweden, the EU and in Michigan, the U.S. federal 

government—and then their own government with three branches (Favre, 2003; Hanssen-

193 

 
 
Forman et al, 2018). However, of the two delegated governments, the EU appears to play a larger 

role in wildlife meat regulation than the U.S. federal government. The two main difference in 

governance structure relating to wildlife and hunting are who functions as the main authority for 

wildlife management and how involved stakeholders are in management decisions. 

In Sweden, the practical management of hunting and wildlife conservation falls to a non-

profit, whereas in Michigan, it falls to a government agency with a civilian committee that has 

been granted decision-making powers (Rudolph, 2005; SEPA, 2014). Much of the decision-

making in Sweden is further decentralized to the county level, where stakeholders can be more 

involved through organizations such as Wildlife Management Delegations or Moose 

Management Groups (Dressel, 2020; Hansson-Forman et al., 2021). Swedish landowners have 

more control over the wildlife on their properties and are often more involved in or responsible 

for management (Brainerd & Kaltenborn, 2010). Although the Michigan NRC does provide 

opportunities for public input on decision-making, these are more passive than those afforded to 

stakeholders in Sweden. In the United States, there have been calls for more participatory 

approaches to wildlife conservation (Jacobson et al. 2010; Organ et al., 2014). Both locations 

have game wardens who enforce hunting rules; however, U.S. game wardens are more 

militarized than their Swedish equivalents, with the same capabilities as police officers 

(Heffelfinger et al., 2013; Jaktlag 1987:259).  

Wildlife Ownership 

In both Sweden and the United States, wildlife is considered a public resource (Organ et 

al., 2014; von Essen et al., 2017). The ownership of dead wildlife, however, highlights key 

differences between the two locations. Dead wildlife in Michigan (a proxy for the United States) 

that has been legally obtained through hunting belongs to the person who killed it (the hunter), 

194 

 
 
once they apply their unique carcass tag (Farve, 2003; MDNR, 2023; WCO, 1989).  In contrast, 

dead wildlife in Sweden belongs to whoever holds the hunting rights, whether that is the 

landowner or someone to whom the hunting right has been transferred (Jaktlag 1987:259).  

In Sweden, dead wildlife not killed by hunting also belongs to whoever holds the hunting 

rights, unless it is a protected species, in which case, the Swedish government can take 

possession for scientific or educational purposes (Jaktlag 1987:259). In Michigan, dead wildlife 

not obtained through hunting belongs to the state, unless otherwise specified (WCO, 1989).  For 

example, in a wildlife-vehicle collision, the owner of the vehicle generally has first rights of 

possession (WCO, 1989). These differences emphasize that wildlife ownership in Sweden may 

be considered more privatized than in Michigan, as owning dead wildlife is directly tied to 

owning land.  

Hunting  

While the basic steps necessary to hunt are similar in both locations, Sweden has more 

rules and regulations than Michigan in most cases. The hunters’ test in Sweden is much more 

involved, requiring hunters to pass multiple tests for firearm safety and accuracy (MDNR, 2023; 

SJ, n.d.). Michigan allows more weapon types to be used for hunting than Sweden does and 

obtaining a weapon in Michigan has few, if any, additional requirements and minimal 

stipulations (Bergström et al, 1992; MDNR, 2023). Firearm ownership in Sweden is much more 

restricted, but there remain clear pathways to firearm ownership for hunters (Bergström et al, 

1992). Hunting licenses are easy to purchase in both locations, and generally do not cost that 

much. In both locations, a majority of the land hunted on is privately owned, and the landowner 

must grant permission to access. However, in Sweden, this permission is formalized with the 

transfer of hunting rights (MDNR, 2023; Sandström, 2012). In Sweden, hunters or landowners 

195 

 
 
 
pool together property in order to hunt large game, such as moose. Hunting is more 

individualistic in Michigan, although it still provides social benefits to hunters. Hunting large 

ungulates in Sweden is almost always a social affair, occurring in teams often with the aid of 

dogs; whereas using dogs to hunt deer is illegal in Michigan (Hawley et al., 1983; MDNR, 2023; 

SJ, n.d.). 

Distribution Rules 

When it comes to the distribution of wildlife meat, the greatest difference between the 

United States and Sweden is the existence of markets for the sale of wildlife meat from large 

ungulates in Sweden—something that Americans generally consider antithetical to wildlife 

conservation (Organ et al., 2012; SNFA, 2007). However, despite the existence of a Swedish 

market for wildlife meat, most of the wildlife meat harvested in Sweden still relies on the social 

networks of hunters for distribution, just as it does in Michigan (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Ljung et 

al, 2012; Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014) While there are no restrictions on American hunters 

sharing their wildlife meat, Swedish hunters face restrictions on sharing the meat from species 

that carry Trichinella (SNFA, 2007). In both locations, a majority of the responsibility for 

wildlife meat food hygiene and safety falls to the hunter (Hedman et al., 2020, SNFA, 2007). 

Hunters in Michigan can donate their entire deer to civic organizations like Sportsmen Against 

Hunger, a practice that generally does not occur in Sweden (Hildreth et al., 2011).  Nevertheless, 

some wildlife meat in Sweden does end up in a public setting (such as schools) (Krantz, 2015). 

The testing restrictions on donated venison in Michigan resemble the restrictions for wildlife 

meat sale in Sweden (MDNR, n.d.b; SNFA, 2007). In both locations, hunters can use 

commercial processes to aid in wildlife meat processing (Clarin & Karlsson, 2013; Frawley, 

2022).  

196 

 
 
 
Outcomes  

Provisional Ecosystem Services  

Michigan and Sweden produce almost the same amount of wildlife meat and the per 

capita wildlife meat production is nearly identical. Despite that, hunters in Sweden end up with 

almost double the amount of wildlife meat per capita than hunters in Michigan, if you assume 

every hunter is successful. However, harvest success rates in Michigan are reported at 53%, 

suggesting that only slightly more than half of Michigan hunters actually harvest a deer any 

given year (Frawley, 2022). Harvest success rates from Sweden are not available for comparison. 

In both locations, wildlife meat production also remained relatively stable over the past 

10 years. Sweden’s land area is approximately 3 times larger than Michigan’s, resulting in 

greater meat production per square kilometer in Michigan. This size difference means that meat 

travels farther geographically in Sweden to be distributed throughout the population. Despite 

having the larger landmass and farther potential distance for meat to move, more people in 

Sweden consume wildlife meat on an annual basis than in Michigan. Approximately 20% more 

of the general population consumes wildlife meat in Sweden, compared to Michigan (Ericsson & 

Heberlein, 2002; Goguen & Riley, 2020; Hellstadius, 2011). This gap is even greater for non-

hunters, as about 30% more non-hunters consume wildlife meat on an annual basis in Sweden 

than in Michigan (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Ljung et al., 2012). Monthly wildlife meat 

consumption amongst the general population has a smaller gap, with consumption in Sweden 

being only 3% greater than in Michigan (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Ljung et al., 2014).   

The techniques used to estimate the consumption rates in Michigan and Sweden are not 

identical and cannot be precisely compared. The comparable wildlife meat consumption data 

available from Michigan focuses solely on venison consumption; however, most wildlife meat 

197 

 
 
available in Michigan is venison (an estimated 96% of people who report consuming wildlife 

meat consume venison; Goguen & Riley, 2020). While the wildlife meat consumption estimates 

from Sweden encompass all wildlife species, large ungulates comprise an estimated 97% of 

wildlife meat produced in Sweden (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Thus, estimates of wildlife 

meat consumption from Sweden may be slightly greater, since they include all species, while 

estimates from Michigan might be slightly less, as they include only venison. The differences in 

consumption, however, are great enough to safely conclude that wildlife meat consumption rates 

are greater in Sweden. This is further supported by the fact that moose consumption in Sweden 

was 10% higher than venison consumption in Michigan, despite moose meat comprising only 

57% of the total Swedish harvest (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Ljung et al., 2014; Wiklund & 

Malmfors, 2014).  

Cultural Ecosystem Services  

Wildlife meat provided similar cultural ecosystem services to hunters in Michigan and 

Sweden. All of the hunters interviewed across both locations consumed and shared the wildlife 

meat they harvested. Moreover, sharing wildlife meat was an important aspect of hunting for 

many hunters in both locations. Hunters from Michigan and Sweden identified wildlife meat as 

special because it symbolized the effort they put into harvesting it. Due to its special status, 

hunters in both locations often chose to share wildlife meat with people they considered 

important, such as family or close friends. Wildlife meat also played an important role in the 

social relations of hunters from Michigan and Sweden. Hunters used it to demonstrate reciprocity 

and aid others, even providing wildlife meat to hunters who could no longer harvest it 

themselves. Wildlife meat was also used to celebrate non-religious holidays. In Michigan, 

donating venison through commercial processors played a role in providing cultural ecosystem 

198 

 
 
 
services, while donation programs were not discussed in Swedish interviews. Despite Michigan’s 

donation programs, wildlife meat was more often directly provided to those in need by hunters 

from both locations. Processing the harvested wildlife was also an opportunity for hunters to 

deepen their social relations, although this was more prominent in Sweden, where a team’s 

pooled resources could provide better equipment. Moreover, teams that harvested multiple 

animals per season spent more time processing animals together. Hunting teams added an extra 

dimension to sharing wildlife meat in Sweden, as they often had elaborate distribution systems.  

Wildlife meat played an important role in hunters’ individual and cultural identities in 

both locations, particularly in relation to self-fulfillment. A sense of self-reliance born from 

harvesting their own food and providing it to others was an important element of hunting for 

hunters from Michigan and Sweden. Swedish hunters also perceived wildlife meat as inherently 

Swedish; thus, consuming it contributed to their sense of national identity. In contrast, hunters 

from Michigan did not frame wildlife meat as a part of their identity as either a Michigan 

resident or as an American. While Michigan hunters emphasized the cultural heritage of hunting 

more strongly, examples of wildlife meat providing cultural heritage ecosystem services existed 

in both locations, particularly those related to the preparation of traditional dishes and recipes. 

Hunters from both locations perceived the heart of harvested wildlife as an important piece of 

wildlife meat. Hunters in Michigan most often consumed it themselves. Nevertheless, sometimes 

the heart was shared at deer camps. Swedish hunters were more likely to share the heart with 

others, often giving it to the shooter or dog handler as a sign of their importance to the hunting 

team.  

Across Michigan and Sweden, wildlife meat provided cultural ecosystem services in the 

form of education and knowledge systems. In both locations, processing wildlife meat was used 

199 

 
 
 
 
to teach children about biology, while sharing wildlife meat was used to teach non-hunters about 

hunting and wildlife management. The knowledge systems built by wildlife meat differed in each 

location, due to differences in environment and hunting; however, much of the built knowledge 

across both locations was associated with processing wildlife meat. In terms of spiritual and 

religious cultural ecosystem services, Michigan hunters talked more about a spiritual or religious 

element to wildlife meat, but hunters from both locations used wildlife meat to celebrate 

religious holidays. 

The only cultural ecosystem service that was present in Sweden and not Michigan was 

tourism cultural ecosystem services created by Sweden’s markets in wildlife meat. Tourists in 

Sweden (either of Swedish or international origin) can purchase wildlife meat in a store to cook 

at home or consume wildlife meat in a restaurant. As the sale of hunter-harvested meat is 

prohibited in the United States, this type of interaction with venison does not legally occur in 

Michigan.  In Sweden, hunters can also profit from tourism ecosystem services, as they can sell 

wildlife meat that then enters the tourism market. 

Discussion 

The similarities and differences in the outcomes of the IAD framework can be compared 

to the similarities and differences in the biophysical/material conditions, community attributes, 

and rules-in-use between Sweden and Michigan to identify potential causes for these outcomes. 

Overall, the provisional and cultural ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat in Sweden 

and Michigan are remarkably similar, despite differences in geography, culture, and governance. 

Although Sweden has regulated markets for wildlife meat, most wildlife meat stays with 

Swedish hunters, who derive similar ecosystem services from their meat to hunters in Michigan. 

Swedish hunters expressed a preference for sharing rather than selling, and I hypothesize that 

200 

 
 
this is influenced by the cultural ecosystem services that wildlife meat provides for hunters when 

they share wildlife meat. Based on my comparison, the provisional and cultural ecosystem 

services that hunters derive from wildlife meat appear ubiquitous, regardless of the presence or 

absence of markets for wildlife meat. 

The main differences between the ecosystem services provided by wildlife meat in 

Sweden and those in Michigan related to non-hunters’ access to wildlife meat. The legal 

commercialization of wildlife meat appears to increase access to wildlife meat, primarily for 

non-hunters. Wildlife meat is more accessible in Sweden, where consumption rates are higher. 

Markets appear to increase the accessibility of wildlife meat for non-hunter consumers in 

Sweden, who can purchase wildlife meat in stores and restaurants. Research from Sweden 

indicates that wildlife markets increase consumption in urban areas; however, wildlife meat was 

still more frequently consumed in the rural north, despite the increased access to markets in 

southern Sweden (Ljung et al., 2014). Although an important component of the overall system, 

Swedish markets for wildlife meat are relatively small and consumption rates in Sweden are only 

greater than in Michigan when it comes to consumers infrequently (one or twice a year) eating 

wildlife meat. Although frequency of consumption is associated with more positive attitudes 

towards hunting, attitudes toward hunting were similar in Sweden and Michigan (Ljung et al., 

2012). The effect of this limited annual consumption of wildlife meat is unknown and an avenue 

for future research.  

The introduction of markets in wildlife meat can have cultural consequences (LaRocco, 

2020). However, in Sweden, markets appear not to limit the cultural ecosystem services that 

wildlife meat provides, and, in fact, enabled wildlife to provide more services to more people. 

Not only did markets increase access to wildlife meat, they also enabled wildlife meat to provide 

201 

 
 
additional cultural ecosystem services in the form of recreation and tourism. However, Sweden 

has a long history of selling wildlife meat, and its current hunting culture developed alongside 

those markets for wildlife meat (Bergström et al, 1992). The commodification of wildlife meat, 

however, can have negative effects on the cultural ecosystem services that wildlife meat provides 

(Nuttall, 1991). It remains unclear how introducing markets to systems where they do not 

currently exist would affect the cultural ecosystem services that wildlife meat provides.  

Institutions in Sweden and Michigan affect the harvest and distribution of wildlife meat. I 

have demonstrated that institutions can determine how the costs and benefits of wildlife meat are 

distributed (Cumming et al., 2020). Furthermore, my analysis indicates that institutions define 

and mediate how people relate to wildlife meat, and more broadly, wildlife (de Vasconcellos 

Pegas et al., 2015). In both locations, formal and informal institutions determine who has access 

to wildlife meat. Formal institutions set rules for obtaining a hunting license and for selling 

wildlife meat. Despite the influence of formal institutions on who can access wildlife meat and 

how it is used, the majority of wildlife meat in both locations was distributed based on hunters’ 

discretion, with little oversight. Thus, the informal institutions of social norms and networks of 

hunters are a key element of wildlife meat distribution (Goguen & Riley, 2020; Ljung et al., 

2012). Research from Michigan indicates that this dependence on hunters’ social networks for 

distribution may limit who has access to wildlife meat (Goguen & Riley, 2020). In both Sweden 

and Michigan, hunters tended to be white, male, and older, with ties to rural areas (Lindberg, 

2010; USFWS, 2023). Since much of the distribution of wildlife meat depends on hunters, it is 

pivotal to consider how institutions influence who hunts and who can access wildlife meat. 

One major concern about the presence of markets in wildlife meat is their potential 

negative effect on wildlife populations (Bennet & Robinson, 2000; VanVliet & Mbazza, 2011; 

202 

 
 
Wilkie & Carpenter, 1999). This concern stems from partially or completely unregulated markets 

(Bennet & Robinson, 2000). In Sweden, there are institutions in place that tightly regulate the 

taking of wildlife and the populations of harvested species have been restored to historic levels 

(Ericsson et al., 2018). Thus, in Sweden is appears that markets in wildlife meat do not have 

negative effects on wildlife populations. Similarly, in the United States, despite a ban on markets 

selling wildlife meat from desirable game species, there are still markets for meat and other 

animal parts from furbearers, which effectively function to meet objectives of wildlife 

management (Organ et al., 2012). Institutions and enforcement is essential to limit the negative 

effects of markets on wildlife populations (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).  

In Sweden, selling wildlife meat was not identified as a motivation for harvest. One 

exception to this is large farms/estates (Större gårdar) that specialize in harvesting wildlife and 

selling wildlife meat for profit. Hunters indicated that they fill their freezer first, then use 

markets as an outlet for surplus, to avoid waste. This lack of economic motivation for harvest is 

likely also tied to factors beyond regulation. Sweden and the United States are two of the 

wealthiest nations in the world and becoming a hunter requires some initial investment. Markets 

for wildlife meat exist in other wealthy European nations with similar effects (Corradini et al., 

2022). It is difficult to draw firm conclusions about whether tight regulation, cultural or 

economic factors, or a combination of both contribute to how hunters use markets for wildlife 

meat in Sweden. It is clear, however, that markets do not always result in declines in wildlife 

abundance or diversity, as long as there are institutions that hinder overharvest. However, the 

economic incentive of Swedish markets does not appear to be a strong enough motivator for 

additional harvest from most hunters, drawing into question if markets are an effective strategy 

for controlling abundant wildlife populations in these locations. Currently, Sweden is facing 

203 

 
 
issues with an exponentially growing wild boar population, and is exploring ways of using 

markets to encourage and ethically use excess harvest (Krantz, 2015). A similar phenomenon is 

emerging in the United States, where the introduction of markets has been proposed to aid in the 

control of abundant wildlife species (Thogmartin, 2006; Vercauteren et al., 2011). 

Markets in wildlife meat can also raise concerns around public health (Volpato et al., 

2020). Nevertheless, no major outbreaks of disease have been reported from wildlife meat sold 

on the market in Sweden. In Sweden institutions exist to ensure food safety and quality for 

wildlife meat that enters the market (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). Similar efforts are in place for 

donated venison in Michigan (MDNR, n.d.b). However, responsibility for the food hygiene and 

safety of the majority of the wildlife meat consumed in Sweden and Michigan falls to hunters 

(Hedman et al., 2020; Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). As the disease and contaminate landscape 

changes in both locations, efforts to educate hunters on wildlife meat hygiene and safety may 

bolster public health.  

The commercialization of wildlife meat is sometimes perceived as synonymous with the 

privatization of wildlife (Geist, 1988; Vercauteren et al., 2011). However, in Sweden, living 

wildlife is owned by no one (von Essen et al., 2017). The commercialization of wildlife meat has 

not led to the privatization of wildlife in Sweden. Land ownership in Michigan and Sweden 

appears to be the most effective way of controlling access to wildlife for hunting. In Sweden, 

hunting rights are tied to land ownership and landowners profit from selling their hunting rights 

(Bergström et al, 1992; Sandström et al., 2013). In Michigan, you cannot hunt on a property 

without the landowner’s consent, and landowners can charge for access to their property for 

hunting. Additionally, in Sweden, the Right to Public Access allows people to engage in outdoor 

recreational activities on anyone’s property. No such right exists in Michigan, yet large tracts of 

204 

 
 
public land that are open to hunting exist throughout the state. The presence of large 

farms/estates (Större gårdar) in Sweden that harvest wildlife and sell their meat for profit, also 

challenge the notion of privatizing wildlife. However, the wildlife on these properties is available 

for anyone to enjoy; they just cannot harvest it.  

Conclusion 

The provisional and cultural ecosystem services that hunters derive from wildlife meat 

appear ubiquitous, regardless of the presence or absence of markets for wildlife meat. To the 

contrary, the commercialization of wildlife meat in Sweden appears to have increased access to 

wildlife meat for non-hunters and provided additional cultural ecosystem services in the form of 

recreation and tourism. Formal and informal institutions in Michigan and Sweden determine who 

can access wildlife meat. Nevertheless, informal institutions play a greater role in how wildlife 

meat is actually distributed throughout society. In Sweden, markets for wildlife meat did not 

cause declines in wildlife populations or outbreaks of zoonotic disease. Regulation appears to 

play an important role in preventing the potential negative effects of commercializing wildlife 

meat. Additionally, in Sweden, markets did not lead to the privatization of wildlife. In both 

Sweden and Michigan, the primary method of controlling access to hunting is private land 

ownership.  

205 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.1:  

The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. 

FIGURES 

Note. The action arena is the conceptual space where actors gather information, consider alternatives, make decisions, take action, and 
experience consequences. It is made up of the action situation and the actors. The factors that influence the action arena are physical 
and material conditions, community attributes, and rules-in-use. The interactions and outcomes from this system are the evaluative 
criteria for policy assessment. Source: Adapted from Ostrom et al., 1994 and Polski & Ostrom, 2017.  

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.2: 

Geographic location of Michigan, USA and Sweden.  

207 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5.3: 

Governance structure for wildlife meat use and distribution in Michigan, USA from the international to the individual level.   

208 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5.4: 

Governance structure for wildlife meat use and distribution in Sweden from the international to the individual level.   

209 

 
 
Figure 5.5: 

Wildlife meat distribution channels in Michigan, USA. 

Note. In Michigan, wildlife meat is harvested by a hunter and shared within their household, social network, at wild game dinners, or 
though donation programs. Secondary consumers are people who consume venison, but do not have a direct social connection to the 
hunter who harvested that meat. Hunters provide venison to members of their social network (i.e. friends, family, neighbors, 
coworkers) either by sharing a meal or gifting raw meat. Wild game dinners are also popular, where a church or other community 
organization may host a wild game dinner for their members, as a fundraiser, or to aid those in need. Often, as members of the 
community in which a wild game dinner is taking place, hunters will share meat with members of their social network, but also their 
harvest may go to others they may not know well or at all. Venison can also be donated to local food banks or kitchens though 
programs like Sportsmen Against Hunger, where venison is processed at a commercial facility, tested for certain diseases and metal 
fragments, and then donated. 

210 

 
 
 
Figure 5.6: 

Wildlife meat distribution channels in Sweden.  

Note. Wildlife meat that is harvested by a team is distributed among team members. Hunters share their meat with members of their 
household or their social network (i.e. friends, family, neighbors, coworkers) either by sharing a meal or gifting raw meat. 
Landowners may retain some wildlife meat as part of the hunting rights transfer or be gifted wildlife meat from the hunting team. 
Additionally, a hunter, hunting team, or landowner can sell wildlife meat to a game handling facility, a food business, or other private 
persons, but restrictions on quantity and form exist. Ultimately, wildlife meat sold to game handling facilities or food businesses ends 
up on the table of secondary consumers. Secondary consumers are people who consume wildlife meat, but do not have a direct social 
connection to the hunter who harvested that meat. Secondary consumers may reside within Sweden or outside of the country. 

211 

 
 
 
Table 5.1:  

TABLES 

Total amount of edible wildlife meat in kilograms produced by large 
ungulates in Michigan USA, and Sweden from 2011- 2021. 

Species 
Year 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
Average 

White Tailed Deer  

All Species Sweden 

Total Harvest  Meat (kg)  Total Harvest  Meat (kg) 

422,014 
420,217 
385,302 
329,040 
334,612 
348,222 
385,554 
367,652 
370,948 
420,071 
403,695 
380,666 

14,517,282 
14,455,465 
13,254,389 
11,318,976 
11,510,653 
11,978,837 
13,263,058 
12,647,229 
12,760,611 
14,450,442 
13,887,108 
13,094,914 

283,308 
333,271 
333,233 
326,873 
336,126 
342,812 
366,055 
356,819 
405,675 
439,101 
386,801 
355,461 

12,117,009 
13,366,020 
13,043,090 
12,501,876 
12,502,809 
12,581,338 
13,465,347 
13,147,868 
14,214,378 
14,993,470 
12,902,787 
13,166,909 

Note. Edible venison from white tailed deer was calculated using an average of 34.4 kg of 
edible meat per harvested deer. This calculation is derived from Goguen et al., 2018 which 
used age class structure and multiple edible venison calculation equations. See Table 5.2 for 
a description of how edible meat for all species from Sweden was calculated.  

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.2:  

Total amount of edible wildlife meat in kilograms produced by large ungulates in Sweden. from 2011- 2021. 

Species 

Moose 
(Älg) 

Red Deer 
(Kronhjort) 

Fallow Deer 
(Dovhjort) 

Roe Deer 
(Rådjur) 

Wild Boar 
(Vildsvin) 

Year 

Meat 
(kg) 

Total 
Harvest 
99,492  8,675,702 
96,134  8,382,885 
95,076  8,290,627 
87,093  7,594,510 
82,996  7,237,251 
82,120  7,160,864 
84,767  7,391,682 
83,059  7,242,745 
80,354  7,006,869 
82,827  7,222,514 
73,232  6,385,830 
Average  86,105  7,508,316 

2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 

Total 
Harvest 
5,231 
6,476 
7,337 
7,744 
8,361 
8,885 
11,600 
11,133 
11,123 
8,814 
9,065 
8,706 

Meat 
(kg) 
224,933 
278,468 
315,491 
332,992 
359,523 
382,055 
498,800 
478,719 
478,289 
379,002 
389,795 
374,370 

Total 
Harvest 
28,661 
34,128 
38,823 
35,711 
41,094 
39,243 
45,978 
50,518 
58,165 
71,565 
70,602 
46,772 

Meat 
(kg) 

Total 
Harvest 
55,926 

Meat 
Total 
Meat 
(kg) 
Harvest 
(kg) 
93,998  1,005,779 
1,688,965 
521,630 
94,962  1,016,093  101,571  3,067,444 
621,130 
2,595,690 
106,047  1,134,703 
706,579 
102,799  1,099,949 
2,824,485 
649,940 
102,198  1,093,519  101,477  3,064,605 
747,911 
107,448  1,149,694  105,116  3,174,503 
714,223 
103,486  1,107,300  120,224  3,630,765 
836,800 
919,428 
97,370  1,041,859  114,739  3,465,118 
1,058,603  105,722  1,131,225  150,311  4,539,392 
1,302,483  115,003  1,230,532  160,892  4,858,938 
1,284,956  113,930  1,219,051  119,972  3,623,154 
103,906  1,111,791  109,973  3,321,187 
851,244 

85,950 
93,526 

Note. Average carcass weight was derived from Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014 which incorporated age class structure of the Swedish harvest (Moose: 
122.8 kg; Red Deer: 57.3; Fallow Deer: 25.6kg; Roe deer: 12.1kg; Wild boar: 50.4). The carcass weight is the skinned and trimmed carcass without head 
and shanks but includes bones, fat, tallow, and tendons (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014). In order to calculate edible meat, the average carcass weight was 
multiplied by the percentage of the carcass weight that is edible meat (Moose: 71% (Hawley et al., 1983); Red Deer: 75% (Kwiatkowska et al., 2009); 
Fallow Deer: 71% (Fitzhenry et al., 2019); Roe deer: 88% (Weiner, 1973) ; Wild boar: 60% (Wiklund & Malmfors, 2014): The average edible meat per 
harvested animal (Moose: 87.2 kg; Red Deer: 43.0 kg; Fallow Deer: 18.2 kg; Roe deer: 10.7 kg; Wild boar: 30.2 kg) was multiplied by the total number 
of harvested animals to make total meat production estimations. 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.3: 

Summary comparison of Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) domain categories between Michigan and Sweden. 

IAD Domain 
Biophysical/Material 
Conditions  

Land area  

146,570 km² 

447,425km2 

Michigan, USA 

Sweden 

Landscape 
Features 

Large Ungulate 
Species 
(* hunted) 

Community 
Attributes  

Population  

Forests, wetlands, grasslands, 
agriculture, lakes, and urban 
developments 
Moose (Alces alces) 
elk (Cervus canadensis) 
*white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 
virginianus) 
feral swine (wild boar; Sus scrofa 
Linnaeus),  
10.1 million 

Forests, agriculture, grasslands, mires, lakes, 
mountains, and urban development 

*Moose (Älg; Alces alces) 
*red deer (Kronhjort; Cervus elaphus) 
*fallow deer (Dovhjort; Dama dama) 
*roe deer (Rådjur; Capreolus capreolus) 
*wild boar (Vildsvin; Sus scrofa Linnaeus) 
European mouflon (Mufflon; Ovis orientalis) 
10.5 million 

Rules in Use 

7% 

660,933 

Total Number 
hunters 
Hunters % 
population  
Government Type   Constitutional federal republic  
Key 
Organizations 
managing wildlife 

Primarily managed at state level  
Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources  
Natural Resource Commission  
At the federal level: 
Department of Agriculture 
Department of Interior  
Environmental Protection Agency 
Public Trust Doctrine  
Michigan Wildlife Conservation Order 

Key Laws wildlife 
and hunting 

~300,000 

3% 

Constitutional monarchy  
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 
(Naturvårdsverket) 
Swedish Association of Hunting and 
Wildlife Management 
(Svenska Jägareförbundet) 
County Administration Boards 
(länsstyrelserna)  

Jaktlag (1987:259) 
Jaktförordning (1987:905) 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.3 (cont’d) 

Outcomes  

(WCO) 
Michigan Natural Resource and 
Environmental Protection Act 
Primarily managed at state level  
Michigan Department of Agriculture 
and Rural Development 
At the federal level:  
Department of Commerce 
Department of Agriculture  
Food and Drug Administration  
Lacey Act 
FDA Food Code 2022 
Michigan Food Law Act 92 of 2000 
Michigan Wildlife Conservation Order 
Michigan Natural Resource and 
Environmental Protection Act 
Wildlife is held in trust by the 
government (federal or state) for the 
benefit of current and future 
generations  
Game lawfully taken, acquired, and 
transported may be possessed by any 
person 

Take a hunter’s safety course, obtain a 
hunting weapon, pay a license fee, and 
find land to hunt on 
No 

Swedish National Food Agency 
(Livsmedelsverket) 
European Union  

EU Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 
EU Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002  
Food Ordinance 2005:20 

No one owns living wildlife, and it is 
thought of as a public resource 

Landowners possess the hunting rights to 
their property, and this includes the right to 
any wildlife found dead or killed in contexts 
other than hunting, with exceptions for 
certain vulnerable species  
Pass the hunting proficiency test, obtain a 
firearm permit and firearm, pay a hunting 
fee, and find land to hunt on 
Yes 

380,666 animals  

355,461 animals 

Key 
Organizations 
managing wildlife 
meat  

Key wildlife meat 
law 

Who owns living 
wildlife? 

Who owns dead 
wildlife? 

Process to hunt  

Can wildlife meat 
be sold?  
Total harvest 
large ungulates 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.3 (cont’d) 

Total wildlife 
meat  
Per capita wildlife 
meat 
Wildlife meat per 
km2 
% Population 
consume wildlife 
meat per year  
Non-hunters 
consume wildlife 
meat per year  
% Population 
consume wildlife 
meat monthly 
Cultural 
Ecosystem 
Services provided 
by wildlife meat  

13.1 million kg 

13.2 million kg 

1.2 kg per person per year 

1.3 kg per person per year 

89.3 kg per km2 

49% (venison) 

29.3 kg per km2 

68-70% (all species) 

34% (venison)  

65% (all species) 

19% (venison) 

22% (all species) 

Social relations 
Identity 
Cultural heritage 
Education 
Knowledge systems 
Spiritual and religious 

Social relations 
Identity 
Cultural heritage 
Education 
Knowledge systems 
Spiritual and religious 
Recreation and tourism 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Adams, C. E., Thomas, J. K., Strnadel, K. J., & Jester, S. L. (1994). Texas rattlesnake roundups: 

Implications of unregulated commercial use of wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 324–
330. 

Adams, K. (2015). Wild venison for sale? Quality Deer Management Association’s Whitetail 

Report 2015, 30–31.  

Alexander, K. A., Sanderson, C. E., Marathe, M., Lewis, B. L., Rivers, C. M., Shaman, J., Drake, 
J. M., Lofgren, E., Dato, V. M., Eisenberg, M.C., & Eubank, S. (2015). What factors 
might have led to the emergence of Ebola in West Africa? PLoS neglected tropical 
diseases, 9(6). 

Arnett, E. B., & Southwick, R. (2015). Economic and social benefits of hunting in North 
America. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 72(5), 734–745. 

Batcheller, G. R., Bambery, M. C., Bies, L., Decker, T., Dyke, S., Guynn, D., McEnroe, M., 

O’Brien, M., Organ, J. F., Riley, S. J., & Roehm, G. (2010). The public trust doctrine: 
Implications for wildlife management and conservation in the US and Canada. Technical 
Review 10-01. The Wildlife Society. 

Bell, D., Roberton, S., & Hunter, P. R. (2004). Animal origins of SARS coronavirus: Possible 
links with the international trade in small carnivores. Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society of London. Series B, 359(1447), 1107–1114. 

Bennett, E. L., & Robinson, J. G. (2000). Hunting of wildlife in tropical forests: Implications for 

biodiversity and forest peoples. The World Bank.  

Bergstrom, R., Huldt, H., & Nilsson, U (Eds). (1992). Swedish Game: Biology and Management. 

Svenska Jägareförbundet.  

Boman, M., & Mattsson, L. (2012). The hunting value of game in Sweden: Have changes 

occurred over recent decades? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(7), 669–674. 

Boman, M., Mattsson, L., Ericsson, G., & Kriström, B. (2011). Moose hunting values in Sweden 

now and two decades ago: The Swedish hunters revisited. Environmental and Resource 
Economics, 50, 515–530. 

Brainerd, S. & Kaltenborn, B. (2010). The Scandinavian model: A different path to wildlife 

management. The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010.  

Bureš, D., Bartoň, L., Kotrba, R., & Hakl, J. (2015). Quality attributes and composition of meat 

from red deer (Cervus elaphus), fallow deer (Dama dama) and Aberdeen Angus and 
Holstein cattle (Bos taurus). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(11), 
2299–2306. 

217 

 
 
 
Byrd, E. S., Widmar, N. J. O., & Lee, J. G. (2015). Non-amenable meat consumption, sale, and 

regulation: bison, beef and bambi, oh my! All meats are not created equal. Drake Journal 
of Agricultural Law, 20, 337. 

Cerulli, T. (2012). The mindful carnivore: A vegetarian's hunt for sustenance. Pegasus Books.  

Clarin, A. W. & Karlsson, J. (2013). From forest to pub: What obstacles oppose more wild boar 

meat on the market? Swedish Board of Agriculture. Rapport 2013:28. 

Cordain, L., Watkins, B. A., Florant, G. L., Kelher, M., Rogers, L., & Li, Y. (2002). Fatty acid 

analysis of wild ruminant tissues: Evolutionary implications for reducing diet-related 
chronic disease. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 56(3), 181. 

Corradini, A., Marescotti, M. E., Demartini, E., & Gaviglio, A. (2022). Consumers' perceptions 
and attitudes toward hunted wild game meat in the modern world: A literature 
review. Meat Science, 194, 108955. 

Crawford, S. E., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science 

Review, 89(3), 582–600. 

Cumming, G. S., Epstein, G., Anderies, J. M., Apetrei, C. I., Baggio, J., Bodin, Ö., Chawla, S., 
Clements, H. S., Cox, M., Egli, L., Gurney, G. G., Lubell, M., Magliocca, N., Morrison, 
T. H., Müller, B., Seppelt, R., Schlüter, M., Unnikrishnan, H., Villamayor-Tomas, S., & 
Weible, C. M. (2020). Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: A post-
Ostrom research agenda. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 26–34. 

Danieli, P. P., Serrani, F., Primi, R., Ponzetta, M. P., Ronchi, B., & Amici, A. (2012). Cadmium, 
lead, and chromium in large game: A local-scale exposure assessment for hunters 
consuming meat and liver of wild boar. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 
Toxicology, 63(4), 612–627. 

Davis, M. L., Stephens, P. A., & Kjellander, P. (2016). Beyond climate envelope projections: 

Roe deer survival and environmental change. The Journal of Wildlife 
Management, 80(3), 452–464. 

de Vasconcellos Pegas, F., Grignon, J., & Morrison, C. (2015). Interdependencies among 

traditional resource use practices, sustainable tourism, and biodiversity conservation: A 
global assessment. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(5), 454–469. 

Derosier, A. L., Hanshue, S. K., Wehrly, K. E., Farkas, J. K., & Nichols, M. J. (2015). 

Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, 
MI.  https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/wildlife/wap/plan 

Dressel, S. (2020). Social-ecological performance of collaborative wildlife governance: The case 

of Swedish moose management [Doctoral dissertation], Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet]. 
https://publications.slu.se/?file=publ/show&id=105340 

218 

 
 
Elofsson, K., & Häggmark, T. (2021). The impact of lynx and wolf on roe deer hunting benefits 

in Sweden. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 1–37. 

Ericsson, G. & Heberlein, T. A. (2002). Four out of five swedes support hunting. Sveriges 
lantbruksuniversitet. https://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/ew-centrala/forskn/popvet-
dok/faktaskog/faktaskog02/4s02-02.pdf.  

Ericsson, G., Sandström, C., & Riley, S. J. (2018). Rural-urban heterogeneity in attitudes 

towards large carnivores in Sweden, 1976–2014. In Large carnivore conservation and 
management: Human dimensions (pp. 190–205). Routledge. 

EU Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. (2004). The hygiene of foodstuffs. 

https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur63426.pdf 

EU Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. (2004). laying down specific hygiene rules for on the hygiene 

of foodstuffs. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004R0853 

Fäger, U., Lundberg, L., Nyholm, L., & Sandberg, M. (2018). Species verification of game meat 
products: Control Rapport. National Swedish Food Agency. Rapport No. 2018:03. 
https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/om-oss/publikationer/artiklar/2018/2018-nr-3-
djurslagsverifiering-av-kottvaror-fran-vilt 

Farve, D. (2003). American wildlife law: An introduction. Animal Legal and Historical Center. 

Michigan State University. https://www.animallaw.info/article/american-wildlife-law-
introduction 

Fitzgerald, L. A., & Painter, C. W. (2000). Rattlesnake commercialization: Long-term trends, 
issues, and implications for conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 235–253. 

Fitzhenry, L. B., Cawthorn, D. M., Muchenje, V., Kotrba, R., Hoffman, L. C., & Bureš, D. 
(2019). Carcass composition and yields of wild fallow deer (Dama dama) in South 
Africa. African Journal of Wildlife Research, 49(1), 100–110. 

Food Law, Act 92 (2000). Michigan. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-act-92-of-2000 

Frawley, B. J. (2006). Demographics, recruitment, and retention of Michigan hunters: 2005 

update. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report No. 3462. 

Frawley, B. J. (2022). Michigan deer harvest survey report 2021 seasons. Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report No. 3704. 

Frawley, B. J. (2023). 2022 Michigan elk hunter survey. Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources. Wildlife Division Report No. 3721. 

Freese, C. H., & Trauger, D. L. (2000). Wildlife markets and biodiversity conservation in North 

219 

 
 
America. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), 42–51. 

Geist, V. (1988). How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, 

jeopardize wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 2(1), 15–26.  

Geist, V., & Organ, J. F. (2004). The public trust foundation of the North American model of 

wildlife conservation. Northeast Wildlife, 58, 49–56. 

Gill, C. O. (2007). Microbiological conditions of meats from large game animals and birds. Meat 

Science, 77(2), 149–160. 

Goguen, A. D. & Riley, S. J. (2020). Consumption of wild-harvested meat in society. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, 44(3), 553–563.   

Goguen, A. D., Riley, S. J., Organ, J. F., & Rudolph, B. A. (2018). Wild-harvested venison 

yields and sharing by Michigan deer hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(3), 197–
212. 

Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921-934 (1968). 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter44&edition=pre
lim 

Gunnarsdotter, Y. (2008). What happens in a Swedish rural community when the local moose 

hunt meets hunting tourism? In B. Lovelock (Ed.), Tourism and the Consumption of 
Wildlife, (pp. 182–195). Routledge. 

Hansen, K., & Malmaeus, M. (2016). Ecosystem services in Swedish forests. Scandinavian 

Journal of Forest Research, 31(6), 626–640. 

Hansson-Forman, K., Reimerson, E., Bjärstig, T., & Sandström, C. (2021). A view through the 
lens of policy formulation: The struggle to formulate Swedish moose policy. Journal of 
Environmental Policy & Planning, 23(4), 528–542. 

Hansson-Forman, K., Reimerson, E., Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., & Sandström, C. (2018). 

Governing large carnivores—comparative insights from three different countries. Society 
& Natural Resources, 31(7), 837–852. 

Harlow, E. (2022, March 17). Once extinct in Michigan, elk are now thriving. Michigan Radio. 

https://www.michiganradio.org/show/stateside/2022-03-17/once-extinct-in-michigan-elk-
are-now-thriving 

Hawley, A. W. L., Sylvén, S., & Wilhelmson, M. (1983). Commercial moose meat production in 

Sweden. Livestock Production Science, 10, 507–516.  

Heberlein, T. A. (1991). Changing attitudes and funding for wildlife: Preserving the sport 

hunter. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19(4), 528–534. 

220 

 
 
Heberlein, T. A., & Ericsson, G. (2005). Ties to the countryside: Accounting for urbanites 

attitudes toward hunting, wolves, and wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10(3), 
213–227. 

Heberlein, T. A., & Willebrand, T. (1998). Attitudes toward hunting across time and continents: 

The US and Sweden. Gibier faune sauvage, 15, 1071–1080. 

Hedman, H. D., Varga, C., Duquette, J., Novakofski, J., & Mateus-Pinilla, N. E. (2020). Food 
safety considerations related to the consumption and handling of game meat in North 
America. Veterinary Sciences, 7(4), 188. 

Heffelfinger, J. R., Geist, V., & Wishart, W. (2013). The role of hunting in North American 

wildlife conservation. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70(3), 399–413. 

Hellstadius, J. (2011). What factors correlates with the use of game meat, wild fish, berries and 
mushroom in Swedish households [Masters thesis, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet]. 
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:slu:epsilon-s-164 

Hildreth, A. M., Hygnstrom, S. E., Hams, K. M., & Vercauteren, K. C. (2011). The Nebraska 
deer exchange: A novel program for donating harvested deer. Wildlife Society 
Bulletin, 35(3), 195–200. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Cawthorn, D. M. (2012). What is the role and contribution of meat from 

wildlife in providing high quality protein for consumption? Animal Frontiers, 2(4), 40–
53. 

Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006). Game and venison–meat for the modern consumer. Meat 

Science, 74(1), 197–208. 

Höglund, J., Cortazar-Chinarro, M., Jarnemo, A., & Thulin, C. G. (2013). Genetic variation and 
structure in Scandinavian red deer (Cervus elaphus): Influence of ancestry, past hunting, 
and restoration management. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 109(1), 43–53. 

Hörnberg, S. (2001). Changes in population density of moose (Alces alces) and damage to 
forests in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 149(1–3), 141–151. 

Hu, P., Shao, Y., Xu, J., Wang, T., Li, Y., Liu, H., Rong, M., Su, W., Chen, B., Cui, S., Chu, X., 

Yang, F., Tamate, H., & Xing, X. (2019). Genome-wide study on genetic diversity and 
phylogeny of five species in the genus Cervus. BMC Genomics, 20, 1–13. 

Ingram, D. J., Coad, L., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Parry, L., Wilkie, D., Bakarr, M. I., Benítez-

López, A., Bennett, E. L., Bodmer, R., Cowlishaw,G., El Bizri, H. R., Eves, H. E., Fa, J. 
E., Golden, C. D., Iponga, D. M., Minh, N. V., Morcatty, T. Q., Mwinyihali, R., Nasi, R., 
Nijman, V., Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., Pattiselanno, F., Peres, C. A., Rao, M., Robinson, J. G., 
Rowcliffe, J. M., Stafford,C., Supuma, M., Tarla, F. N., van Vliet, N., Wieland, M., & 
Abernethy, K. (2021). Wild meat is still on the menu: Progress in wild meat research, 

221 

 
 
policy, and practice from 2002 to 2020. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 
46, 221–254. 

Iqbal, S., Blumenthal, W., Kennedy, C., Yip, F. Y., Pickard, S., Flanders, W. D., Loringer, K., 

Kruger, K., Cadwell, K. L., & Brown, M. J. (2009). Hunting with lead: Association 
between blood lead levels and wild game consumption. Environmental Research, 109(8), 
952–959. 

Jacobson, C. A., Organ, J. F., Decker, D. J., Batcheller, G. R., & Carpenter, L. (2010). A 

conservation institution for the 21st century: Implications for state wildlife agencies. The 
Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(2), 203–209. 

Jaktförordning (1987:905). (1987). Jaktförordning. https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=1987:905 

Jaktlag (1987:259). (1987). Jaktlag. https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=1987:259 

Kaltenborn, B. P., Linnell, J. D., Baggethun, E. G., Lindhjem, H., Thomassen, J., & Chan, K. M. 

(2017). Ecosystem services and cultural values as building blocks for ‘the good life’. A 
case study in the community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological 
Economics, 140, 166–176. 

Kautto, A. H. & Bjerselius, R. (2020). Ammunition lead in venison: Mapping study of 

ammunition lead in ground venison from game handling facilities. National Swedish 
Food Agency. Rapport No. 2020:15. https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/om-
oss/publikationer/artiklar/2020/l-2020-nr-15-ammunitionsbly-i-viltkott 

Kjellander, P., Svartholm, I., Bergvall, U. A., & Jarnemo, A. (2012). Habitat use, bed‐site 

selection and mortality rate in neonate fallow deer Dama dama. Wildlife Biology, 18(3), 
280–291. 

Krantz, C. (2015). Game as a resource: From forest to table – Current situation and 

development opportunities – a pilot study. Södermanland County Administrative Board 
County. www.lansstyrelsen.se/sodermanland/publikationer.  

Kwiatkowska, A., Zmijewski, T., & Cierach, M. (2009). Utility value of carcas of European der 
(Cervus elaphus) and its meat evaluation. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition 
Sciences, 59(2), 151-156. 

Langenau, E. (1994). 100 years of deer management in Michigan. Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report Number 3213.  

Largent, E., Scullon, H. W., & Beyer Jr., D. E. (2015). 2015 Western Upper Peninsula Moose 

Survey. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Division Report No. 3616.  

LaRocco, A. A. (2020). Botswana’s hunting ban and the transformation of game-meat cultures, 
economies and ecologies. Journal of Southern African Studies, 46(4), 723–741. 

222 

 
 
Larsen, C. S. (2003). Animal source foods and human health during evolution. The Journal of 

Nutrition, 133(11), 3893S–3897S.  

Lavsund, S., Nygrén, T., & Solberg, E. J. (2003). Status of moose populations and challenges to 

moose management in Fennoscandia. Alces, 39, 109–130. 

Lindberg, E. (2010). Hunter demography, trends and correlates of hunting participation in 

Sweden. [Masters thesis, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet]. 
https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/957/1/Lindberg_E_100323.pdf 

LIVSFS 2005:20. (2005). Livsmedelsverkets föreskrifter om livsmedelshygien. 

https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/swe202192.pdf 

Ljung, P. E, Sandström, C., Ericsson, G., & Kvastegård, E. (2014). Consumption of forest 
ecosystem services: Game, mushrooms, and berries. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. 
https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11992/7/ljung_p_etal_150320.pdf 

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., & Ericsson, G. (2015). Game meat consumption feeds urban support of 
traditional use of natural resources. Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 657–669. 

Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., Heberlein, T. A., & Ericsson, G. (2012). Eat prey and love: Game‐meat 

consumption and attitudes toward hunting. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 36(4), 669–675. 

Mainka, S.A. & Trivedi, M. (Eds.). (2002). Links between biodiversity bonservation, livelihoods 

and food security: The sustainable use of wild species for meat. International Union for 
Conservation of Nature. 

Marchello, M. J., Berg, P. T., Slanger, W. D., & Harrold, R. L. (1985). Cutability and nutrient 

content of white-tailed deer. Journal of Food Quality, 7(4), 267–275.  

Mattsson, L., Boman, M., & Ezebilo, E. E. (2014). More or less moose: How is the hunting value 

affected? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(2), 170–173. 

Mattsson, L., Boman, M., Ericsson, G. (2008) Jakten i Sverige—Ekonomiska värden och 

attityder jaktåret 2005/06. Adaptiv Förvaltning av Vilt och Fisk, Rapport Nr. 1 

Mattsson, L., Boman, M., Ericsson, G., & Paulrud, A. (2008). Welfare foundations for efficient 

management of wildlife and fish resources for recreational use in Sweden. In B. Lovelock 
(Ed.), Tourism and the consumption of wildlife (pp. 191–203). Routledge. 

Ménard, C. (1995). Markets as institutions versus organizations as markets? Disentangling some 

fundamental concepts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 28(2), 161–182. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2016). Michigan deer management plan. 

Wildlife Division Report No. 3626 

223 

 
 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). (2023). Michigan hunting regulations 

summary. https://www.michigan.gov/-
/media/Project/Websites/dnr/Documents/LED/digests/hunting_digest.pdf 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (n.d.a). Hunter safety certificate. 

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/things-to-do/hunting/education 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (n.d.b). Michigan sportsmen against 

hunger. https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/about/get-involved/michigan-sportsmen-against-
hunger. 

Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger (MSAH) (n.d.) Michigan sportsmen against hunger: 
Hunters and non-hunters working together for channeling precious resources into 
opportunities for a better community. https://www.sportsmenagainsthunger.org/ 

Namujju, L. D., Acquah-Swanzy, H., & Ngoti, I. F. (2023). An IAD framework analysis of 

minigrid institutions for sustainable rural electrification in East Africa: A comparative 
study of Uganda and Tanzania. Energy Policy, 182, 113742. 

Nasi, R., Brown, D., Wilkie, D., Bennett, E., Tutin, C., Van Tol, G., & Christophersen, T. 

(2008). Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: The bushmeat crisis. 
Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 33. 
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-33-en.pdf 

National Deer Association (NDA). (2023). Deer report 2023: An annual report on the status of 
wild deer. https://deerassociation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/NDA-DR2023-
FINAL.pdf.  

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 (1994). 
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-451-of-1994 

Nelson, M., Wright, T. L., Pierce, A., & Krogwold, R. A. (2003). A common-source outbreak to 
trichinosis from consumption of bear meat. Journal of Environmental Health, 65(9), 16–
19. 

Nuttall, M. (1991). Sharing and the ideology of subsistence in a Greenlandic sealing 

community. Polar Record, 27(162), 217–222. 

Organ, J. F., Decker, D. J., Stevens, S. S., Lama, T. M., & Doyle-Capitman, C. (2014). Public 

trust principles and trust administration functions in the North American model of 
wildlife conservation: Contributions of human dimensions research. Human Dimensions 
of Wildlife, 19(5), 407–416. 

Organ, J., & Mahoney, S. (2007). The future of the public trust. The Wildlife Professional, 1(2), 

18–22. 

224 

 
 
Organ, J.F., Geist, V., Mahoney, S.P., Williams, S., Krausman, P.R., Batcheller, G.R., Decker, T. 

A.,  Carmichael, R., Nanjappa, P., Regan, R., Medellin, R. A.,  Cantu, R.,  McCabe, R. 
E., Craven, S., Vecellio, G. M. & Decker, D. J. (2012). The North American Model of 
Wildlife Conservation. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04. The Wildlife 
Society. 

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. 

University of Michigan Press. 

Paulsen, P., Bauer, A., & Smulders, F. J. M. (Eds.). (2014). Trends in game meat hygiene: From 

forest to fork. Wageningen Academic Publishers. 

Peters, G., & Savoie, D. J. (2000). Governance in the twenty-first century: Revitalizing the public 

service. McGill-Queen's Press. 

Polski, M. M., & Ostrom, E. (2017). An institutional framework for policy analysis and 

design. In D. H. Cole & M. D. McGinnis (Eds), Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington 
School of Political Economy: A framework for policy analysis (Vol. 3, pp 13–47). 
Lexington Books. 

Public Act 19 of 2023. (2023). http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2023-HB-4138 

Ramanzin, M., Amici, A., Casoli, C., Esposito, L., Lupi, P., Marsico, G., Mattiello, S., Olivieri, 

O., Ponzatta, M. P., Russo, C., & Marinucci, M. T. (2010). Meat from wild ungulates: 
Ensuring quality and hygiene of an increasing resource. Italian Journal of Animal 
Science, 9(3), 318–331. 

Rao, M. & McGowan, P. J. K. (2002). Wild-meat use, food security, livelihoods, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology, 16(3), 580–583. 

Responsive Management & The National Shooting Sports Foundation (RM & NSSF). (2019). 

American attitudes toward hunting, fishing, sport shooting and trapping. Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 
https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/7715/5733/7920/NSSF_2019_Attitudes_Su
rvey_Report.pdf 

Ross, R. D., Stec, L. A., Werner, J. C., Blumenkranz, M. S., Glazer, L., & Williams, G. A. 

(2001). Presumed acquired ocular toxoplasmosis in deer hunters. Retina, 21(3), 226–229. 

Rudolph, B. A., Schechter, M. G., & Riley, S. J. (2012). Governance of wildlife resources. In D. 

J. Decker, S. J. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human Dimensions of Wildlife 
Management (2nd ed., pp 15–23). The Johns Hopkins University Press.  

Rudolph, B.A. (2005). Population biology, abundance, and management history of Michigan 

white-tailed deer. Paper presented at the Michigan Society of American Foresters 
“Forests and Whitetails-Striving for Balance.” St. Ignace, Michigan, 9–10 June.  

225 

 
 
Sandström, C. (2012). Hunting for sustainability: A summary of research findings from Sweden. 

HUNT. http://fp7hunt.net/ 

Sandström, C., Di Gasper, S. W., & Öhman, K. (2013). Conflict resolution through ecosystem-
based management: The case of Swedish moose management. International Journal of 
the Commons, 7(2), 549-570.  

Sillanpää, P. (2008). The Scandinavian sporting tour 1830–1914. In B. Lovelock (Ed.), Tourism 

and the consumption of wildlife (pp. 81–94). Routledge. 

Sjöström, L. (2000). Rikspolisstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd om utbildning m.m. av 

jakttillsynsman (FAP 696-1 RPSFS 2000:28). https://polisen.se/lagar-och-
regler/polismyndighetens-forfattningssamling/ 

Stanford, C. B., & Bunn, H. T. (Eds.). (2001). Meat-eating and human evolution. Oxford 

University Press.  

Statistics Sweden (2019). Land use in Sweden. 7th ed. Regions and Environment Department. 

https://www.scb.se/contentassets/eaa00bda68634c1dbdec1bb4f6705557/mi0803_2015a0
1_br_mi03br1901.pdf 

Statistics Sweden. (n.d.). Population Statistics. https://www.scb.se/be0101-en 

Stryamets, N., Elbakidze, M., & Angelstam, P. (2012). Role of non-wood forest products for 

local livelihoods in countries with transition and market economies: Case studies in 
Ukraine and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(1), 74–87. 

Svenska Jägareförbundet (SJ). (n.d.). Svenska Jägareförbundet . https://jagareforbundet.se/ 

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). (2014). Wildlife and Wildlife Management: 

Research strategy for the period 2015-2020 for the Swedish Environmental Protection 
Agency research funding from wildlife management.  

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). (n.d.). Hunting permit. 

https://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/topics/hunting/hunting-permit 

Swedish National Food Agency (SNFA). (2007). Guidance for hunter’s direct supply of small 
quantities of wild game meat. Swedish National Food Agency.  www.slv.se.  

Swedish National Food Agency (SNFA). (n.d.). Meat from wild game: Section IV Game 

handling facilities and cutting plants (wild game). 
https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/foretagande-regler-kontroll/sa-kontrolleras-ditt-
foretag/livsmedelsanlaggningar/eu-godkanda-anlaggningar/sektion-iv---kott-fran-
frilevande-vilt 

The Wildlife Conservation Order (WCO). (1989). https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-

226 

 
 
resources/laws/orders/wildlife-conservation-order 

Thogmartin, W. (2006). Why not consider the commercialization of deer 

harvests? Bioscience, 56(12), 957–957. 

Thulin, C. G., Malmsten, J., & Ericsson, G. (2015). Opportunities and challenges with growing 

wildlife populations and zoonotic diseases in Sweden. European Journal of Wildlife 
Research, 61, 649–656. 

Torp, E. (2013). The legal basis of Sami reindeer herding rights in Sweden. Arctic Review on 

Law and Politics, 4(1), 43-61. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2023). 2022 National survey of fishing, hunting, and 

wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior. 
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Final_2022-National-Survey_101223-
accessible-single-page.pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (n.d.) Data Dashboard: Hunting Licenses, Holders, 
and Costs by Apportionment Year. https://partnerwithapayer.org/funding-sources/ 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). (2022). 2022 Food Code. 
https://www.fda.gov/media/164194/download?attachment 

US Census Bureau. (n.d.). Michigan. https://data.census.gov/profile/Michigan?g=040XX00US26 

Van Vliet, N., & Mbazza, P. (2011). Recognizing the multiple reasons for bushmeat 

consumption in urban areas: A necessary step toward the sustainable use of wildlife for 
food in Central Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(1), 45–54. 

VerCauteren, K. C., Anderson, C. W., Van Deelen, T. R., Drake, D., Walter, W. D., Vantassel, 

S. M. & Hygnstrom, S. E. (2011). Regulated commercial harvest to manage 
overabundant white-tailed deer: An idea to consider? Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35, 185–
194. 

Volpato, G., Fontefrancesco, M. F., Gruppuso, P., Zocchi, D. M., & Pieroni, A. (2020). Baby 

pangolins on my plate: Possible lessons to learn from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal 
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16(19), 1–12.  

Von Essen, E., Allen, M., & Hansen, H. P. (2017). Hunters, crown, nobles, and conservation 

elites: Class antagonism over the ownership of common fauna. International Journal of 
Cultural Property, 24(2), 161–186. 

Warenik-Bany, M., Strucinski, P., & Piskorska-Pliszczynska, J. (2016). Dioxins and PCBs in 
game animals: Interspecies comparison and related consumer exposure. Environment 
International, 89, 21–29. 

227 

 
 
Weiner, J. (1973). Dressing percentage, gross body composition and caloric value of the roe-

deer. Acta Theriologica, 18(11), 209–222. 

Wiklund, E., & Malmfors, G. (2014). Game meat as a resource in Sweden - with particular focus 

on moose (Alces alces). In P. Paulsen, A. Bauer, M. & F. J. M. Smulders (Eds.), Game 
meat hygiene in focus: From forest to fork (pp. 305–320). Wageningen Academic 
Publishers. 

Wilkie, D. S., & Carpenter, J. F. (1999). Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: An assessment 

of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 8(7), 927–955. 

Willebrand, T. (2009). Promoting hunting tourism in north Sweden: Opinions of local 

hunters. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 55(3), 209–216. 

228