The MeatEater

Buckle up, this is a weird one. Cue the banjos in the distance.

On Feb. 21, a motorist called 911 to report they had witnessed a man having sex with a dead deer on the side of Phillip Stone Way in Central City. Police went to investigate the disturbing report and found a man near the scene with bloody hands and his pants around his knees.

Officers also observed unspecified fluid on his facial hair, deer fur stuck to the bottom of his hoodie, and blood stains on his boxers. The man, identified as Allen Lynne Osborne, a 32-year-old from Owensboro, was arrested within 30 minutes.

Once back at the Muhlenberg County Jail, police also discovered that Osbourne had blood and deer fur stuck to his genitals.

“This is a first for me—and I’ve been here for 21 years,” Central City Police Chief Jason Lindsey told Oxygen.

Osborne faces a felony charge for sexual crimes against animals. His bail is currently set at $5,000, and, according to The Independent, he pleaded not guilty on Monday morning. If convicted, he could face a sentence of one to five years in prison.

We’re all for mounting taxidermy on your walls of animals you’ve harvested, but please refrain from mounting roadkill, in any way, shape, or form. Dead deer surely don't deserve that.

Feature image via Muhlenberg County Detention Center.

Hunters debate the validity of baiting black bears (or any game for that matter) all the time. Baiting often raises questions of sportsmanship or fair chase, but it might not be as black and white of an issue as hunters sometimes make it. I’ve only hunted over bait a few times—for deer and pigs in Texas—and I wasn’t a fan. While I had my own opinions about baiting bears, I thought it might be different from deer and pigs. So, I gave it a try.

Up until now, my bear hunting experience was limited to spot-and-stalk hunting in the mountains of Montana and on the beaches of Southeast Alaska. So, I went to Manitoba in the spring of ‘25 to see what all the fuss was about. Here are a few things I learned during my first baited bear hunt.

Craig MacCarthy, owner and main guide of North Mountain Adventures, prefers to start with only oats when he sets a bait pile. Bears don’t digest oats well. They actually run right through them. I can attest; the area surrounding these bait sites is a mat of bear shit that looks like you could make oatmeal out of it.

Craig’s thinking is that if they pass the oats quickly, without gaining many calories or feeling full, the bears will return more often. Once the hunters show up, he then sweetens the bait with corn and pastries to make the baiting sites more appealing. It’s not exactly a one-and-done ordeal, despite what most people might assume.

It makes sense, right? If I were to bait you, apple pie might outperform pizza, and beer might beat out apple pie. When it comes to Manitoban black bears, nothing compares to a beaver carcass.

Compared to the barrel full of corn and oats soaked in used fryer grease and topped with pastries and birthday cake, the beaver carcass in the tree right next to the bait pile drew the bears in first every time. They didn’t even bother with the barrel until the beaver was gone. We hung the beaver out of reach one night. The bears messed with the rope and tree until they got the beaver, never once glancing at the bait barrel.

I’ve heard a few bear noises over the years. Maybe a huff or a slight grunt, but nothing like what I heard in the Manitoban jungle surrounding that bait barrel. That’s probably due to the nature of baiting compared to spot-and-stalk hunting. The close proximity of a baited bear lets you in on the nuances of the bear vocabulary. Many of the sounds were more like vibrations, and there were a lot of them. It was wild.

You’d think that a 400-pound bear at 12 yards would be an easy target, and it can be. But, in low-light conditions, aiming at a completely dark object becomes tricky.

It’s all just black; there is no shoulder crease, no ribs, no color changes. Settling your pin on the middle of the middle (this is how any bear expert describes the aiming point on a bear) becomes hard because your entire sight picture is just black fur. It’s like having your scope turned up to twelve power on a deer at 50 yards; all you see is brown hair.

You can remedy this with a bit of patience. Instead of letting an arrow fly and hoping for the best, take a second to look at the bear with both eyes away from the peep sight. Once you make note of that middle of the middle, it should be easier to locate through your peep. Just make sure you don’t hug too close to the shoulder.

Even though I helped Craig fill a few barrels of bait, I had little to do with the rest of the hunt. I didn’t pick the location, nor did I set a stand. Maybe this is just part of any guided hunt. The guide does the hunting, and the client does the killing.

If that’s what you want from a hunt, then you won’t have any problem with this strategy. Even though I played a minimal role in this hunt, I learned a lot and will probably be a better baiter in the future. Still, I missed the feeling of my own hard work paying off with an earned shot opportunity.

Black bears are good to eat. I already knew that, but I was reminded of that fact with over a hundred pounds of meat and lard, which I turned into oil. Now that I have one bear hide and one big bear skull, I don’t have much use for another. What I do have a use for is more bear meat. I would 100% kill another bear and only keep the meat. It’s that good.

Was this hunt easier than most hunts I go on? The answer is a resounding yes, but that doesn’t necessarily lessen the experience. I am better off having experienced this hunt. Is it a hunt that I’ll do every year going forward? Probably not. But, would I like to do it every three years? Definitely yes!

Click here to watch my Manitoba black bear hunt now.

Janis Putelis kicks off our "12 in 26" series as he takes his bow to Manitoba in search of a giant black bear. To make things even more interesting, he hunts over bait for the first time to see what the fuss is all about. Presented by Moultrie and OnX Maps.

This week, Cal covers an especially creative abalone poacher, a really, really old bear attack, and an update from our nation's capital.

Connect with Cal and MeatEater

To learn more and get involved with any Cal to Action, click here.

Cal on Instagram and Twitter

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Youtube Clips

Subscribe to The MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube

Shop Cal's Week in Review Merch

Steven Rinella talks with naturalist, writer, and sculptor George Bumann, Brody Henderson, Phil Taylore, and Corinne Schneider. 

Topics discussed: George's book, Eavesdropping On Animals; Animal vocalizations; subscribe to the new Bear Grease YouTube channel; laws on game retrieval; just how pungent skunk odor really is; stay tuned for MeatEater TV's new "12 in 26" hunt series, starting with Jani's Manitoba bear episode; how absurd it is that guys called better than turkeys themselves; what various raven calls mean; how the birds gossip about everything; wolf howling and squirrel chirping translations; all the animals are talking about and know you; silence as the most important alarm that exists; The 2026 Yellowstone Summit; and more. 

Connect with Steve and The MeatEater Podcast Network

Steve on Instagram and Twitter

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube

I stopped when I noticed two does feeding about 300 yards off, and whispered to my wife that I was going to practice aiming. Moments later, a few more deer showed up. As I watched them through the scope, a big buck appeared, and my heart raced full-throttle.

The buck nosed through the does, and twice when he stood still, I started to squeeze the trigger. However, he started moving again, and I anxiously waited for the right opportunity. He followed one doe behind a hill while the other deer kept feeding. I anxiously waited, wondering if he would return to the rest of the herd. Luckily, I didn’t have to wait long.

He returned and stood still long enough to give me a shot. I settled the crosshairs, and my rifle’s report and recoil surprised me. Deer scattered, and I ran to the top of the hill for a better view. White flags flew in every direction, but none of them had antlers. I then noticed an unmistakable white belly lying on the prairie. That tremendous 5x5 buck only ran 30 yards.

After years of drawing preference points, I was happy to notch my tag on this buck, especially on the opening morning of rifle season. It required a bit more strategy than a traditional over-the-counter (OTC) hunt, but it was well worth it.

While there are countless OTC whitetail tags available across North America, limited draw opportunities can provide some of the best hunting for DIY deer hunters. Here are a few things to consider before throwing your name in the hat.

Unlike OTC opportunities, limited draw states have a few more advantages. First, limited tags mean limited hunting pressure. OTC offers great access…to everyone. However, I enjoy the elbow room that comes with limited draw units. I’ve been on numerous OTC hunts where I bumped into tons of other hunters. Limited competition has its perks.

While not a guarantee, draw states can increase your chances of harvesting bigger, older bucks. Because the competition is limited, bucks have a greater chance of living longer. So, if you want to increase your chances of killing a mature buck, draw states might give you a better shot.

Draw odds can be difficult to decipher. Most states publish draw odds by breaking them down by preference points on their wildlife department websites. Preference points enhance your odds of drawing a tag (hence the name). Some states allow you to purchase them after the draws are completed. If you don’t draw a state one year, consider purchasing preference points to improve your odds for the next.

States typically divide areas into different hunting units, which can make the application process even more confusing. Instead of scrambling through multiple web browsers, you can use a digital mapping service like onX or GoHunt to streamline the process. These platforms allow you to search for hunts using filters such as draw odds, public land percentages, trophy quality, and your preferred weapon.

If you want the opportunity to travel hunt every year, consider applying to a handful of states. This will increase your odds of drawing a tag to a different state every year. Some Wyoming units take only one or two points to draw. Ditto with South Dakota. Meanwhile, Iowa’s premier units take at least four years to draw an archery tag, which aligns with prime pre- and peak-rut dates. If you do the math and figure out a rotation, you could potentially draw a different state every year.

The downside to hunting draw states is that you won’t hunt the same place every time. In other words, it’ll take longer to learn an area than it does in OTC states, where you can hunt the same ground every year.

Still, I’ve seen some of the biggest bucks while hunting draw states. If your goal is to increase your chances of seeing and potentially killing a mature buck, draw states can offer you that, even if you’re less familiar with the land.

Since you can’t hunt these places every year, I’ve found that e-scouting plays a huge role in your success. Instead of wasting your evenings in front of the TV, spend that time e-scouting and dropping markers over potential areas you want to hunt. You can do this all year round, not just the months before your hunt.

E-scouting these draw states has made a huge difference in my own success over the years. You may only get a week to hunt a state that took you years to draw, so you have to make the most of it. E-scouting can give you a great head start.

While draw opportunities closed earlier this year, you might find a leftover tag. Otherwise, you’ll have to hunt an OTC state if you want to travel this year. Still, it’s not too early to research draw opportunities for next year. Putting in for draw states requires more work than an OTC, but I’ve found the hassle well worth it.

Hosts Randall Williams, Janis Putelis, and Seth Morris, talk about their recent travels to conventions and hunts, interview Scott Heidebrink of American Prairie about the BLM's recent decision to revoke the organization's bison grazing permits, impress the class with their super cool stuff in Show & Tell, and catch up with the Newcomb family to learn about the new Bear Grease YouTube channel.

Watch the live stream on the MeatEater Podcast Network YouTube channel.

Subscribe to The MeatEater Podcast Network

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube

For the past several weeks, Brent's been hitting the road from Tennessee to Pennsylvania as a goodwill ambassador, and meeting people from all over the eastern half of the country. We get the hunt and sports show stops, but guest lecturing at the University of Tennessee? What were they thinking? Pull up a chair and find out for yourself. It's time for MeatEater's "This Country Life" podcast. 

Shop This Country Life Merch

Connect with Brent and MeatEater

MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Youtube Clips

Subscribe to the MeatEater Podcast Network on YouTube

Shop This Country Life Merch

Shop Bear Grease Merch

Grinding up your harvest is a go-to means of turning trim, tougher cuts, and smaller muscle groups into versatile, quick, and tasty meals.

There will always be debate on how much fat you should add to your ground venison. In fact, some purists don’t believe you should add any at all. Danielle Prewett recommends adding between 10 and 20% for burger, but she often leaves some without added fat for recipes like Thai lettuce cups. For the sake of sanity and the brevity of this article, I decided to test different fat types with a 15% fat content.

When it comes to what kind of fat to add, it seems like every hunter has a go-to. I wanted to test five different, easy-to-source fats for this experiment: pork fat, beef fat, pork butt, bacon, and butter. I then compared these fat-infused grinds against a straight, no-fat venison grind.

While you don’t necessarily need to add fat to your grind, it can give your burger a boost to make it even more delicious. Venison is a naturally lean meat, but adding fat can work in a few ways to make it even tastier. First, fat itself is flavorful, but it can also enhance the mouthfeel of food and help boost browning during the Maillard reaction.

To test the different grinds, everything got the same treatment through a chilled grinder: three passes through a medium plate—the first meat only, the next two with fat. I like a larger, looser grind for burgers, but that's just a personal preference. Then, test portions were seasoned with only salt and pepper and cooked on a flat top. For the tasting bit, we tried just the plain burger patty—no cheese, sauce, bun, or any other distractions.

Anonymous tasters and I rated the burgers on flavor, mouthfeel, browning, and juiciness. That chart below represents the average scores.

The biggest shock of this test was how much I actually enjoyed the no-fat burger. The flavor was great, the texture and mouthfeel were solid, and it managed to get fairly browned and juicy, considering no fat was added. It was a bit crumbly for a burger patty, but I think it would be perfect for loose grind applications that you plan on browning in a pan.

The bacon burger cooked up beautifully. It made a juicy patty with nice browning. However, no surprise, the bacon flavor totally overpowered the venison's natural flavors. If I were to use bacon in grind again, I think it could make a very tasty maple breakfast sausage.

I love butter, so I was a bit disappointed with the results of the butter burger. It hands-down had the best browning of the bunch. But the burger itself was really dry. This leads me to believe that the butter just cooks out of the burger. I think this could be good if you’re cooking ground meat in a pan for something like a bolognese sauce or Shepherd’s pie filling where it could keep cooking in the rendered off fat.

The pork fat was the undisputed winner of this bunch. This fat enhanced the flavor of the venison without overpowering it. The patty was well-browned and juicy and made one helluva burger.

I was also surprised by the results of the beef fat burger. While it made a juicy, well-browned patty, the mouthfeel was horrible. It was rubbery in a way that none of the other fats were. It felt like biting into a fast-food burger that sat under the heat lamp for too long.

Maybe I didn’t get a well-marbled enough pork butt, but this was my least favorite addition. It was drier than the no-fat elk meat with poor browning. The flavor was also a bit muted, and overall, it was just a bit meh. I would rather have straight venison than add this to the grind.

In all honesty, once a patty was covered with a slice of melted cheese and placed on a toasted bun with proper burger fixings, it was more difficult to tell the difference between the various grinds. I mention this because not everyone has a local butcher who can provide pork back fat or wants to dilute healthy venison meat with fat.

And it's important to consider the quality of fat you're sourcing, because buying low-quality pork or beef fat will impact the taste and texture of the final grind. Make friends with your local butcher or if you know someone who raises livestock, they're often willing to part with some fat when butchering time comes around, especially if you give some grind or snack sticks back in return.

So, if anything, I hope this article encourages you to experiment and try more types of fat in your burger grind. Everyone has a different palette, and what pleases mine may not be your cup of tea. If you have a favorite fat or would like to see more fats compared, let me know in the comment section below!

I’m a lifelong conservative, passionate hunter, and conservationist who believes in straightforward truths. One of those truths is that modern life depends on natural resources. Nearly everything we rely on—from pickup trucks, farm equipment, and roads to cell phones, medical devices, and energy infrastructure—exists because someone grew it, mined it, or logged it. Mining is not something to apologize for. It is foundational to a functioning economy and a strong nation.

If the United States is serious about manufacturing, energy independence, and competing with adversarial nations, then domestic mineral production matters. It matters for jobs. It matters for supply chains. It matters for national security.

But another truth is just as important: not every place is appropriate for every kind of development. Supporting mining does not mean supporting mining anywhere, at any cost, under any circumstances. Responsible development requires judgment, restraint, and an understanding of risk. That is especially true when water is involved.

That reality is now directly before the United States Senate. Congress is currently considering a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal a 20-year mineral withdrawal covering roughly 225,000 acres of public land and water near the most visited wilderness in the United States—Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northern Minnesota. That withdrawal currently prevents sulfide mining in the headwaters of one of the most important and special freshwater systems in North America.

If this resolution passes, it would do more than overturn the existing withdrawal. Under the CRA, it would also prevent any future administration from issuing a substantially similar protection without new authorization from Congress. In practical terms, it would move a proposed mine known as the Twin Metals sulfide copper project significantly closer to reality.

This is not an abstract policy debate. It is a decision with long-term consequences for water, communities, and public lands. This is why the proposed Twin Metals sulfide copper mine deserves serious concern from conservatives, sportsmen, and rural communities alike.

To be blunt—you can support mining and still oppose this mine. In fact, if you care about responsible stewardship, fiscal conservatism, and long-term national interest, you should.

Not all mining presents the same environmental risks. In the case of copper, the difference between oxide ores and sulfide ores is critical.

Oxide copper ores generally pose lower long-term water contamination risks. Sulfide ores are different. They contain sulfur-bearing minerals that, when exposed to air and water during mining, crushing, and waste disposal, undergo chemical reactions that produce sulfuric acid.

That acid dissolves heavy metals like copper, arsenic, cadmium, and zinc and carries them into streams, lakes, and groundwater. This process, known as acid mine drainage, is well documented. It is not theoretical. It is basic chemistry.

Once it starts, it is extremely difficult to stop. This is the defining environmental challenge of sulfide mining, and it has shaped the history of copper development across North America.

Over the past sixty years, major sulfide copper mines in the United States and Canada have a consistent record: nearly 100% of them contaminated surface or groundwater. This happens even using the most advanced technology and prudent regulations of today.

In Montana, California, Vermont, Idaho, and British Columbia, former and current mining sites have produced acidic, metal-laden water that contaminated rivers, streams, and groundwater. Some of these sites, such as the Berkeley Pit in Montana or Iron Mountain in California, require continuous water treatment and will likely do so forever. This perpetual treatment occurs at great taxpayer expense.

In many cases, these problems did not emerge immediately. They developed gradually, sometimes years after operations began or even after mines closed. Waste rock piles weathered. Tailings seeped. Collection systems failed. Pipes broke.

Across different companies, different regulatory regimes, and different decades, the outcome has been as consistent as gravity. Water contamination follows sulfide mining. This is not a condemnation of individual operators. It reflects the inherent difficulty of managing sulfide waste over long periods of time in real-world conditions.

Supporters of the Twin Metals project often emphasize that it will use dry stacking, or “flat stacking,” rather than traditional wet tailings ponds. This is presented as evidence that the project is fundamentally safer.

Dry stacking is an improvement. It reduces the risk of catastrophic dam failures, which have caused serious environmental disasters around the world. Removing large volumes of standing water from tailings facilities lowers certain types of risk. But it does not eliminate the central problem of sulfide mining.

Dry-stacked tailings still contain sulfide minerals. Those minerals still react with oxygen and water. Rain and snowmelt still pass through the piles. Acid and metals are still generated. That contaminated water must still be captured, treated, and managed—forever.

Instead of a dramatic failure, the risk is quieter and slower: seepage, leakage, gradual migration into groundwater and nearby lakes. Many mines using dry stacking that currently operate in wet environments similar to northern Minnesota have resulted in water contamination. It’s not a matter of if, it’s when.

The Boundary Waters region is uniquely vulnerable to water pollution. It is defined by interconnected lakes, shallow soils, fractured bedrock, and abundant surface water. Pollutants do not remain isolated. They move. So, contamination in one place will almost certainly affect water miles away.

This interconnectedness of the water is a reason that the area supports such productive fisheries and high-quality habitat. It is also why contamination would be so difficult to contain. Hunters and anglers understand this instinctively. When a headwater stream is damaged, downstream fishing suffers. When spawning habitat is contaminated, populations decline. When water quality drops, so does the outdoor economy that depends on it. It also irreparably harms those that depend on the resource for drinking water.

Twin Metals Minnesota is owned by Antofagasta, a Chile-based mining company. It is one of the largest foreign mining conglomerates in the world. This means that corporate control, profit, and strategic decision-making are overseas. The copper produced would likely head to China for processing before entering global markets. It would not be reserved for American markets.

In effect, the United States would be assuming long-term environmental risk so that a foreign corporation can export a strategic resource. From a conservative, national-interest perspective, that deserves scrutiny. But, even if Twin Metals were owned by a U.S. company, and all of the copper stayed here, the risks outweigh the reward.

Many conservatives are understandably uneasy with presidents unilaterally withdrawing land from development. There is a strong argument that major land-use decisions like this should be made through congressional action or formal resource management planning with deep public engagement, not executive fiat.

That concern is legitimate. But it is important to understand that the Boundary Waters mineral withdrawal was not created out of thin air. It was authorized under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). That law was passed by Congress with strong bipartisan support—approved by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, including large numbers of Republicans.

Congress deliberately gave the executive branch authority to make up to twenty-year withdrawals when warranted for resource protection concerns. If members of Congress now believe that authority is too broad, the appropriate response is to amend FLPMA through legislation.

Using the Congressional Review Act to permanently block future protections is a blunt instrument that should be used sparingly to rectify egregious overreach by the executive branch. A president using express authority granted to him by Congress to prevent irreversible resource damage to a pillar of our public land system hardly qualifies as egregious overreach.

This is not an argument against mining. It is an argument for pragmatism. We can support domestic resource production and still say no to bad projects in bad places. We can believe in economic development and still protect the things that cannot be replaced. We can value jobs and also value clean water.

That balance is not a weakness. It is responsible leadership. For hunters, anglers, outdoor recreationists, rural families, and freedom loving Americans, the Boundary Waters represents something more than scenery. It represents opportunity. It represents a place where people still connect with land and water in meaningful ways. It represents a shared heritage, and a freedom to roam in ways that connect us to the generations that came before and those that will come after us.

Risking all of that for a foreign-owned sulfide mine with potential permanent water-treatment needs at the expense of taxpayers everywhere is short sighted, not conservative stewardship. It is an unnecessary risk.

Mining matters. So does water. And in this case, protecting the water and standing up for the freedom and security that our public lands represent is the conservative choice. Now is the time to let your Senators know you want them to stand up for the Boundary Waters area, and vote no on the CRA Resolution, HJ Res. 140.

Feature image via Steve Piragis.