Wild game meat statistics show how varied the supply can be: Alabama’s 2024–2025 hunting report recorded hundreds of thousands of harvested animals across several categories, while a USGS study estimated 11,402 to 14,473 metric tons of edible venison from Michigan’s 2013 deer season. Older international trade figures add a wider historical view, with FAO reporting about 55,000 tons of world game-meat imports in 1978.
Contents
- Alabama harvest totals
- Hunter effort by species
- Quail and dove figures
- What the Alabama percentages show
- Michigan venison yield and sharing
- Historical global game-meat trade
Alabama harvest totals
The 2024–2025 Alabama Hunter Harvest Annual Report recorded hunting participation, hunter-days, and harvests for a broad range of species. These are Alabama figures for that season, not a national estimate and not a measure of edible meat weight.
The largest listed harvest total was 1,620,306 doves. Alabama also reported 421,921 ducks, 360,036 squirrels, 331,025 pen-raised quail, and 285,162 wild hogs. The same report recorded 117,705 raccoons, 102,702 coyotes, 61,433 rabbits, and 40,305 wild quail harvested.
Other reported totals were 37,406 geese, 18,139 coots, 6,351 opossums, 3,814 woodcock, 2,554 bobcats, and 2,478 foxes. Snipe had the smallest listed harvest, at 71. These totals describe animals harvested; they do not state how much meat was recovered from each animal or how much was eaten.
| Species or category | Hunters | Hunter-days | Harvested |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dove | 66,354 | 271,747 | 1,620,306 |
| Duck | 27,784 | 276,410 | 421,921 |
| Squirrel | 28,374 | 156,372 | 360,036 |
| Pen-raised quail | 8,780 | 48,882 | 331,025 |
| Wild hog | 38,384 | 208,204 | 285,162 |
| Raccoon | 11,008 | 170,547 | 117,705 |
| Coyote | 26,156 | 171,749 | 102,702 |
| Rabbit | 9,736 | 84,942 | 61,433 |
| Wild quail | 3,396 | 27,869 | 40,305 |
The report also listed 8,132 goose hunters, 1,997 coot hunters, 2,229 opossum hunters, 780 woodcock hunters, 3,918 bobcat hunters, 1,650 fox hunters, and 310 snipe hunters. Those participation counts help separate a high total harvest caused by many hunters from a high harvest associated with fewer participants.
Hunter effort by species
Alabama’s report supplied two effort measures: average days per hunter and days per harvest. The measures vary substantially by species. Raccoon hunters averaged 15.5 days per hunter, the highest listed average. Duck hunters averaged 9.9 days, rabbit hunters 8.7 days, wild quail hunters 7.3 days, and coyote hunters 6.6 days.
The report recorded 5.8 average days per fox hunter, 5.5 for squirrel hunters, 5.4 for wild hog hunters, 4.1 for dove hunters, and 3.4 for woodcock hunters. Goose and coot hunters each averaged 3.3 days. Bobcat hunters averaged 2.1 days, opossum hunters 1.9 days, and snipe hunters 1.1 days.
The days-per-harvest figures are a separate way to describe the relationship between effort and reported harvest. Alabama recorded 4.88 days per snipe harvest, 3.89 for fox, and 3.26 for bobcat. Coyote hunters recorded 1.67 days per harvest, while raccoon hunters recorded 1.45 and rabbit hunters 1.38.
For other categories, the report recorded 0.73 days per wild hog harvest, 0.71 per goose harvest, 0.70 per woodcock harvest, 0.66 per duck harvest, and 0.66 per opossum harvest. Squirrel hunters recorded 0.43 days per harvest, and coot hunters 0.36. These figures are report measures, not cooking yields or preparation times.
| Category | Average days per hunter | Days per harvest |
|---|---|---|
| Raccoon | 15.5 | 1.45 |
| Duck | 9.9 | 0.66 |
| Rabbit | 8.7 | 1.38 |
| Wild quail | 7.3 | 0.21 |
| Coyote | 6.6 | 1.67 |
| Wild hog | 5.4 | 0.73 |
| Squirrel | 5.5 | 0.43 |
| Bobcat | 2.1 | 3.26 |
| Snipe | 1.1 | 4.88 |
The wild quail entry deserves careful reading. Alabama reported 7.3 average days per wild quail hunter and 0.21 days per harvest. The pen-raised quail category used a reported 16 days per harvest, alongside 8,780 hunters, 48,882 hunter-days, and 331,025 harvested birds. These categories are distinct in the report and should not be combined.
Quail and dove figures
The Alabama report separated wild quail from pen-raised quail. Wild quail had 3,396 hunters, 27,869 hunter-days, and 40,305 harvested birds in 2024–2025. Pen-raised quail had 8,780 hunters, 48,882 hunter-days, and 331,025 harvested birds.
Dove hunting was reported at a much larger participation level: 66,354 hunters and 271,747 hunter-days, with 1,620,306 doves harvested. The report gave a mean of 4.1 days per dove hunter and 0.17 days per dove harvest.
The same Alabama report said 72% of dove hunters would be willing to travel more than 30 minutes for a public-lands limited-quota dove hunt. This is a stated survey percentage about willingness to travel, not a count of trips or a measure of harvest success.
For readers thinking about wild game cooking, the key distinction is between the report’s harvest unit and a kitchen-ready portion. A harvested dove, quail, duck, or hog is counted as an animal or bird in the hunting report. The supplied figures do not provide species-specific carcass weights, edible yields, preparation losses, or serving sizes, so those conversions cannot be made from these statistics alone.
What the Alabama percentages show
Alabama also reported access and participation percentages for waterfowl hunting. In 2024–2025, 57% of waterfowl hunters hunted waterfowl on public land. Among public-land waterfowl hunters, 19% hunted primarily on wildlife management areas (WMAs), 21% hunted primarily on other public land, and 14% split their time equally between WMAs and other public land.
The report’s trapping figures describe a different activity from the listed hunting harvests. It reported that 94.2% of trappers did not trap during the season. Among the supplied target categories, 2.8% targeted raccoon, 1.1% targeted coyote, and 0.7% targeted “other” species. Another 1.4% did not know which species they targeted.
These percentages should remain separate from the hunter and harvest counts. A percentage of waterfowl hunters using public land is not a percentage of all Alabama hunters, and the trapping percentages are not a meat-consumption survey. They provide context about participation and activity, while the harvest totals provide counts of reported animals or birds.
Michigan venison yield and sharing
The USGS study “Wild-harvested venison yields and sharing by Michigan deer hunters” estimated that 11,402 to 14,473 metric tons of edible venison were procured during Michigan’s 2013 deer season. This is an estimate for Michigan and that specific season, expressed as metric tons of edible venison. It should not be presented as a current national total.
The same USGS study found that 85% of deer hunters who harvested a deer shared their venison. Each sharing hunter shared with an average of 5.6 people. The study reported that venison sharing reached 69% of hunters’ households, 52% of relatives, and 50% of friends, neighbors, or coworkers.
Those findings describe distribution as well as procurement. The 85% figure refers to deer hunters who harvested a deer, while the 5.6 figure is the average number of people reached by each sharing hunter. The household, relative, and friend-or-neighbor percentages identify reported recipient groups. They do not indicate equal quantities, nutritional value, or how much meat each group received.
For a cooking audience, this distinction matters because “venison procured” is a total edible-weight estimate, whereas “shared with” describes the social path of the food after harvest. The supplied USGS figures do not provide a recipe-level breakdown by cut, package size, preservation method, or cooking loss.
Historical global game-meat trade
The FAO article “Unasylva No. 123” reported that world imports of game meat reached about 55,000 tons in 1978, with a value of about US$140 million. FAO also said that world game-meat imports had nearly trebled since the mid-1960s.
These are historical global trade figures. The 1978 quantity is expressed in tons, while the supplied value is in 1978-era US dollars as reported by FAO; no inflation adjustment is provided here. “Nearly trebled” is the source’s description of change since the mid-1960s, not a supplied year-by-year series.
The FAO figures also measure imports, not total production, harvest, domestic consumption, or edible yield. They therefore sit alongside the Alabama and Michigan figures rather than replacing them. Alabama reports hunting activity and harvested animals in one U.S. state during 2024–2025; Michigan’s USGS study estimates edible venison from a 2013 deer season; FAO reports an older global trade measure for 1978.
Taken together, the figures show why wild game meat statistics need a clear unit and place: animals harvested, hunter-days, days per harvest, edible metric tons, recipient percentages, and imported tons answer different questions. Keeping Alabama, Michigan, and global trade measures in their stated periods and geographies prevents a harvest count from being mistaken for a meat-yield estimate or a historical import total from being read as a current market size.