Animal Products Drove Colonial Economy, Spurred Conservation Efforts

Key Quotes

"But in America, I guess, there were no rules, and everyone could hunt animals. The old way to think about it, I often remind people to think back to certain details of the Robin Hood story, where you have the king's deer, okay? And part of Robin Hood's gig, right, is to go hunt on the king's estate to get venison, which you would then distribute to the poor. It's part of the Robin Hood narrative. So, yeah, in England and in Western Europe by that point, things were heavily developed. Most of the woods, the wilderness was gone. Having access to wild landscapes was something that was relegated only to the most wealthy."

Steven Rinella explains that unlike in Europe, where hunting was restricted to the aristocracy, early America offered a more open landscape for hunting. This difference is illustrated by the Robin Hood narrative, where hunting on royal land was a transgression, highlighting the contrast with the American colonial experience where access to hunting was more widespread.

"So, the animal grease thing was a thing, but it was dwarfed by the deer skin trade. If you look at these old paintings you see of, of like, the King of England around the time of the colonial period, you'll sometimes notice that they're wearing a white breech or a white pant, a seeming white pant. That's buckskin. Buckskin was used as workwear, but it was also something that the affluent individuals wore. Those white breeches, those white buckskin pants, it was the preferred material for clothing making."

Steven Rinella highlights the significant economic impact of the deer skin trade during the colonial period, noting it was the second largest commodity exported from the colonies. He points out that buckskin, derived from deer hides, was not only practical workwear but also a material favored by affluent individuals, as evidenced in historical depictions of royalty.

"The buffalo hide hunter could kill 20 or 30 buffalo a day and sell the hides at $3.50 a piece, and he didn't have to put any money into it. You're not raising them, you're not feeding them. It's totally different than cattle. They're just out there. Oh yeah, is it true that like the buffalo just stood there while the hunters shot at them? Like they didn't really understand? No, it's not true. They were just so good at what they did. They knew how to make that happen."

Steven Rinella clarifies that the near extinction of buffalo was not due to their passivity but rather the extreme skill and efficiency of the hunters. He emphasizes that these hunters could kill a large number of buffalo daily for their hides, a process requiring no investment in raising or feeding the animals, unlike cattle ranching.

"The country really turned westward after the Civil War. Once the South, you know, the Union was saved, we sent our army out to pacify hostile tribes in the West and to protect economic interests in the West. And with that shift westward, we started looking for leathered resources out West, and they identified this 15 million buffalo. There was nothing special about buffalo leather. We had an insatiable appetite for leather. What became is we needed it to produce industrial belting."

Steven Rinella explains that the post-Civil War westward expansion in America led to a focus on western resources, particularly buffalo, for leather production. He notes that buffalo hides were not uniquely valuable but were crucial for the industrial revolution, specifically for creating the leather belting needed to power machinery.

"Our industry, in the '30s, we put ourselves under a 13% excise tax. So when you buy guns or ammunition, any gun purchase, guns, ammunition, sporting equipment, there's an anywhere from 11% to 13% excise tax, which goes right into conservation spending. You go find me another industry that has anything comparable to that. It does not exist. And then our agencies that manage wildlife in America, all 50 states have a fish and wildlife agency. Their funding comes from licenses, permits, and stamps paid by hunters and anglers. We're a self-funded group of Americans."

Steven Rinella highlights the self-funded nature of wildlife conservation in America, driven by hunters and anglers. He points out that an excise tax on sporting goods and the purchase of licenses and permits directly fund conservation efforts, a model he states is unique to this industry.