Wild harvests could aid food insecurity and reduce wildlife hyperabundance

Global food insecurity has increased despite a more than decade-long commitment to end hunger by 2030 (FAO et al. 2024). In the United States, 12.8% of households (17.0 million) reported food insecurity in 2022 (Rabbitt et al. 2023). Government and charitable organizations spend billions of dollars on food assistance annually across the United States (Feeding America 2023, Rabbitt et al. 2023) but often fall short of providing desired meat products or meeting nutritional needs (IOM 2005, Oldroyd et al. 2022).

Wild-harvested game donations from at least 48 programs across the United States provide about 860 metric tons of meat annually (10.1 million meals, assuming 85 grams represents one adult serving; USDA 2019) with an estimated value of US$13.1 million (LeBleu and Landry 2022, Responsive Management 2023a, USDA 2024). Wild-harvested game meat donation programs can also enhance hunter harvest rates and social acceptance (Hildreth et al. 2011, Ljung et al. 2012). Although most hunters state they are willing to donate meat to hunger relief organizations, only 4.3% of those surveyed participate (Responsive Management 2023b). Consequently, there remains substantial potential to increase the positive impacts of wild meat donation programs.

Michigan case study

We explored a wild-harvested meat donation program in Michigan, in the United States, designed to enhance food security and potentially reduce hyperabundant wildlife (i.e., when a species’ population density exceeds twice the long-term density; sensu Moore et al. 2023). Michigan has the thirteenth greatest food insecurity rate among US states, with an estimated 14.2% (about 1.4 million) of residents experiencing food insecurity at least part of the year in 2022 (figure 1a, b; Feeding America 2024). Hunters contribute harvested white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger (MSAH), an effort to reduce food insecurity that has provided about 520 metric tons of venison since 1991 (MSAH 2024).

Figure 1.

(a) County populations in 2022 and (b) number of people reporting food insecurity, Michigan, United States, 2021 (Gundersen et al. 2023, US Census Bureau 2024). (c) Locations of venison recipient organizations (n = 94 of 100 represented) and venison processors (n = 31). (d) Venison servings (i.e., meals) donated and (e) servings per person reporting food insecurity by county, 1 October 2022–30 September 2023.

In addition to hunters, government agencies performing culls and farmers seeking to reduce agriculture damage donated harvested white-tailed deer to processors who process the meat into ground venison (figure 2). Historically, culls represented more than half of donated deer, followed by hunters, with less than 10% from farmers (Joseph Presgrove, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 9 August 2024). Government agencies and farmers donate deer throughout the year, typically outside the hunting season.

Figure 2.

(a) White-tailed deer herd. Photograph: Amy Lutz. (b) Processed ground venison. Photograph: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Processors remove the lymph nodes from each deer then label the meat and lymph nodes with unique identifiers. The lymph nodes are submitted for testing by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) for bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease. If either is detected, the corresponding meat is destroyed. The processed meat is also taken to a lab certified by the US Department of Agriculture to scan for metal (figure 1c). Any packages of venison containing metal are also destroyed. The venison free of metal and disease is then distributed by the MDNR to charitable recipient organizations. The meat processors and the metal detection lab are compensated for their work from MSAH and MDNR, respectively. Funds are provided to MSAH from direct donations and hunters that contribute when purchasing hunting and fishing licenses.

Between 1 October 2022 and 30 September 2023, 31 processors and 100 recipient organizations participated in venison donations (figure 1c; MSAH 2023), providing over 600,000 meals (MSAH 2024; figure 1d). The Food Bank Council of Michigan estimates this represents 5.7% of the annual amount of venison that could be used by their food donation facilities (Garrett Zuver, Food Bank Council of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, personal communication, 18 July 2024) at most. Venison donations occurred in 42 counties (mean [] = 1225 kilograms [kg], standard error [SE] = 195 for participating counties), with 41 counties receiving no donations (mean [] = 620 kg, SE = 154 when including all counties; figure 1d; MSAH 2023). On average, the recipient organizations were 18 kilometers (Euclidean distance) from the nearest processor and 183 kilometers from the metal testing facility.

To characterize the amount of venison donated as individual meals (i.e., servings), we divided the mass of donated meat in each county by 85 grams representing one adult serving (USDA 2019). The mean servings per person ranged from 0 to 6.5 across counties (figure 1e). We then divided the donated servings by the number of people in each county experiencing food insecurity to estimate the overall mean value (0.5 servings per food insecure person when including all counties).

Our investigation demonstrates that venison donations can be increased to further address food insecurity in Michigan. White-tailed deer are hyperabundant in southern Michigan (MDNR 2016), where food insecurity is also greater. Although regionally venison donations are greatest in these areas (MDNR 2016), at the county level, they are misaligned with the magnitude of food insecurity. The reasons for this disparity include the following:

Economic constraints

Current voluntary financial contributions are unpredictable and support operating costs only (MSAH 2023), creating challenges with planning, increasing processor reimbursements, and making large purchases for program improvement (e.g., refrigeration trailers).

Declining participation

The number of deer hunters is declining 1.4% annually (MDNR 2024), reducing the number of potential participants. For the remaining hunters, participation may be limited by proximity to participating processors (Responsive Management 2023b). Processor recruitment and maintenance is hindered by concerns with government bureaucracy, inadequate compensation, and storage because of venison testing and distribution wait times that conflict with standard business operations.

Limited resources and facilities

In Michigan, all venison donations are transported by a small team to a single certified metal testing lab, which delays venison pickups and therefore creates storage issues.

Lack of awareness

Hunters report that increasing awareness would amplify program participation (Responsive Management 2023b). Similarly, culling can be more socially acceptable when venison is donated to people experiencing food insecurity (Hare et al. 2021), but there could be limited program awareness across the state that limits deer removal efforts.

Need for data and data standards

The program collects data on individual venison donations, then reports the total mass of processed venison and where it is donated. However, there are inconsistencies in data entry and no centralized, backed-up database. Moreover, while a survey found that about 1% of responding Michigan hunters donate venison (Goguen et al. 2018), participant characteristics and resident awareness remains understudied.

Recommendations

From our Michigan case study and relevant literature, we provide six interrelated recommendations to reinforce food security:

Explore additional funding models

Taxpayer funding through stable government appropriations would make programs more financially stable and enable expansion. The potential financial savings related to alleviating food insecurity and reducing hyperabundant wildlife (e.g., reduced deer–vehicle collisions and crop damage) could offset these costs (Drake et al. 2005).

Develop best practices on the basis of evidence

Research-based evidence and long-term monitoring could help donation programs quantify and increase acceptability of venison among their recipients; improve decisions regarding organizational structure; develop protocols for testing and distributing meat; and refine outreach to hunters, processors, and the people reporting food insecurity. Standardized protocols for data collection (e.g., data standards, common formats, and data governance) could enhance program efficiency and capacity (Hildreth et al. 2011, LeBleu and Landry 2022).

Streamline donations and quality control measures

Strategies and protocols that simplify processes and reduce costs for hunters, meat processors, and agency personnel could broaden program participation. In particular, recruiting meat processors in new areas would increase spatial coverage of programs and decrease travel for hunters that donate deer. Similarly, using portable metal-detection equipment or strategically establishing more metal- and disease-testing facilities could reduce transportation costs and test result wait times, in turn decreasing venison storage costs before distribution while testing occurs.

Align wildlife removal and game meat distribution to better target needs

Improved game meat donation programs could better align with areas of hyperabundant wildlife and high food insecurity while considering cultural differences (e.g., rural versus urban communities) that influence how much venison individuals will consume (i.e., acceptability; Goguen and Riley 2020). Doing so would further storage, transport, processing, and testing efficiencies.

Enhance outreach efforts

Effective outreach to hunters could increase program participation (Responsive Management 2023b), and efforts to promote public acceptance of game meats could bolster the desire for venison.

Encourage collaboration within and across states

Wildlife abundance and food insecurity vary regionally in the United States (Rabbitt et al. 2023). Increased coordination could facilitate problem wildlife removal and transportation of game meat to communities in need across state borders, further reducing food insecurity and wildlife damage nationally. Greater organization could also increase sharing of resources and improve data standardization and quality.

Broader impacts

White-tailed deer in the eastern United States demonstrate the multifaceted benefits of wild meat donation programs. Deer hyperabundance increases the frequency and magnitude of damage to vehicles, crops, and ecosystems. In the United States, an estimated 2.1 million deer–vehicle collisions occur annually, causing about US$10 billion in damages, 59,000 human injuries, and 440 human deaths (Cunningham et al. 2022). Crop damage by deer caused an estimated US$276 million (adjusted for inflation) in losses in the northeastern United States alone (Drake et al. 2005). Through increased herbivory, high deer densities can reduce plant diversity and forest regeneration while potentially facilitating invasive species (DeCalesta 1994, Rawinski and Square 2008). Venison donation programs emphasizing meat derived from hyperabundant deer populations could therefore advance food security while reducing economic loss and improving ecosystem health.

Globally, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals to secure a future of peace and prosperity (UNGA 2015). Wild-harvested game meat donation programs meet at least four of these goals. While primarily working to end hunger (goal 2: zero hunger), they also deliver healthy, fresh, and desirable protein sources to food-insecure populations (goal 3: good health and well-being; Hoffman and Cawthorn 2012). Achieving these goals could incentivize hunters to increase harvests of hyperabundant wildlife species (Hildreth et al. 2011), protecting terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem function (goal 15: life on land; Heffelfinger et al. 2013). Finally, with effective natural resource management, this renewable source of game meat could contribute to sustainable food production (goal 11: sustainable cities and communities).

Wild harvest limitations

Wildlife conservation policy in North America was formed to protect overexploited species (Organ et al. 2012). These policies were effective for many species, including white-tailed deer, now considered hyperabundant throughout most of eastern North America (Waller 2008). In contrast to commercial fur harvesting, restrictions on commercial harvest and sale of other wildlife products (e.g., meat) limit the means of white-tailed deer population reduction through hunting and culling by government agencies (Hygnstrom et al. 2014). Moreover, hunting as a tool for population control is now ineffective at reducing deer populations across large spatial extents because of reduced hunter numbers (Riley et al. 2003). Hunters typically stop hunting once they meet their personal needs; however, hunters able to donate meat could increase overall harvests. Although there is some evidence of this from hunter responses to existing donation programs (Hildreth et al. 2011), this relationship is tentative, and venison donation programs remain limited in part by voluntary participation. Moving forward, several considerations appear warranted, including increasing government culls and voluntary participation in wild-harvested game meat donation programs, implementing more liberalized hunting seasons with increased harvest limits, establishing more formalized food donation programs with stable government or grant-sponsored funding, and exploring regulated commercial harvest (Hygnstrom et al. 2014).

Author Biography

David S. Mason (masonda6@msu.edu), Mark E. Bell, Kenneth F. Kellner, Abigail Bennett, and Jerrold L. Belant are affiliated with the Wild Foods Institute, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, Michigan, in the United States. Tom Weston and Joseph Presgrove are affiliated with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, in Lansing, Michigan, in the United States.

Author contributions

David S. Mason: conception and design, interpretation of data, drafting manuscript, reviewing and revising manuscript. Mark E. Bell: conception and design, interpretation of data, drafting manuscript, reviewing and revising manuscript. Kenneth F. Kellner: interpretation of data, reviewing and revising manuscript. Abigail Bennett: interpretation of data, reviewing and revising manuscript. Tom Weston: interpretation of data, reviewing and revising manuscript. Joeseph Presgrove: interpretation of data, reviewing and revising manuscript. Jerrold L. Belant: conception and design, interpretation of data, reviewing and revising manuscript.