Winter 2013 | $7.95
YOU CAN FIND OUR PRODUCTS AT AUTHORIZED DEALERS AND ONLINE AT WWW.SWAROVSKIOPTIK.COM.
EL 42
CAN DO EVERYTHING EVEN BETTER Whether you’re out glassing or waiting patiently in a blind, or whether it’s sunny or gloomy – no two days are the same when you’re hunting. You are bound to be faced with many different situations. One good thing that you can always count on is the EL 42 binoculars, the impressive all-rounder from SWAROVSKI OPTIK. These legendary binoculars accompany you from early till late, even at twilight. The EL 42 binoculars are the perfect combination of size and weight. An optical masterpiece that is appealing thanks to its exceptional edge-to-edge sharpness and outstanding field of view. SWAROVSKI OPTIK – allows you to determine the moment.
SEE THE UNSEEN WWW.SWAROVSKIOPTIK.COM
Mule deer rut along the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. © Peter Eades / Images On The Wildside
Volume 28
n
Number 4
n
Winter 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS “The big question for us hunters, ranchers, farmers, and nature explorers, is: what is that correct balance between our North American big game species and our large predators?”
4
From the Editor | In this Issue...................................................................................Mark B. Steffen
6
From the President | Predators and Policy Constraints ........................... William A. Demmer Changing Landscapes ........................................ By Greg Schildwachter and William F. Porter
10 Capitol Comments | Conservation Funding for the Future .......................... Steven A. Williams P.14
14 DEER RIFLE! .........................................................................................................Wayne van Zwoll 22 UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL .........................................................................Chuck Adams
P.22
P.26
26 .280 REMINGTON ...................................................................................... Craig T. Boddington 28 DISINTERESTED SCIENCE | The Basis of our Roosevelt Doctrine....... Valerius Geist 32 KEEP TROPHY RECORDS HONEST | Maintaining Accurate Trophy Records Along the Blacktail/Mule Deer Boundary...................... Jim Heffelfinger et al.
P.28
42 THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB
The Founding Fathers of Wildlife Conservation in America.................................... Doug Painter
P.32
52 Knowledge Base | The European Connection............................................. Winifred B. Kessler P.42
54 B&C Professor’s Corner | Jumpstarting Tomorrows Leaders........................ Paul R. Krausman 56 Member Adventure | Colonel W.D. Pickett, Bear Hunter................................ Theodore J. Holsten
P.52
P.54
58 Wild Gourmet | Whole Pronghorn on an Iron Cross.................................... Michael Chiarello 60 Trophy Talk | Trophy Tampering ......................................................................... Jack Reneau 62 Beyond The Score | The North American 29 Sponsored by OnX Maps ..........................................................................................................Justin E. Spring
P.56
66 Recently Accepted Trophies | 29th Awards Program Entries.
q
P.58
74 Trophy Photo Gallery.............................. Sponsored by Realtree Xtra Green
P.60
78
the Last word
The Ethics of Fair Chase | Why Do Your Kids Hunt? . . ........................ Daniel A. Pedrotti, Jr.
P.62
FROM THE EDITOR In this Issue A veritable wealth of information is an apt description of the winter issue of Fair Chase. The past year has been an Mark B. Steffen exhilarating blur as the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF editorial board Chairman B&C discussed, debated, Publications Committee wrestled, argued, and ultimately and simply reached out to the brilliant individuals who collectively constitute the Boone and Crockett Club. These contributors and authors are the true leaders—in thought as well as action. Their interwoven ties to the hunter-conservation community, to multiple conservation organizations, to governmental agencies and ultimately to each of us as we find our way afield is of itself an amazing story. They span several generations and many countries. Hopefully, within today’s pages you will find an article that you connect with right now and another that helps elevate you to your tomorrow. We are treated to an in-depth look at the deer rifle by Wayne C. van Zwoll, PhD, one of the most gifted and eloquent outdoor writers of our time (make that, any time). His breadth of knowledge as to the historical, physical, and ethical aspects of the hunt deserve, even command, our respect.
In their article “Predator and Policy Constraints,” authors Greg Schildwachter, PhD, a graduate from a B&C doctoral program, and William F. Porter, PhD, a B&C Professor, begin to lay the foundation for the melding of science and policy. Do not miss the significance of this critical step in conservation as it is an absolute battleground that cannot be ignored. “Disinterested Science” is not what you might think. This article by Valerius Geist, PhD, dives into science’s dirty secret. That being, unless science is unbiased (performed by a “disinterested” researcher), the results can and will be tainted, misleading, and even destructive. This occurs for a multitude of reasons, none of which are for the greater good. The hunter-conservation community has held science in such high regard for so long. Some even regard it as the decision maker. It’s not. It is a tool that needs gentle care and to be closely watched. Ultimately, science is used by our leaders to assist in decision-making, guiding wise-use principles as best as possible. I sadly suspect that contrived science will become the tool of the animal rights activists augmenting and equal to the courtroom bog, today’s most favored technique. Please consider this issue as our gift to you. Our best effort to entertain, educate, and elevate the well-being of both body and soul. Enjoy! n
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: Fair Chase, Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801 Phone: (406) 542-1888 Fax: (406) 542-0784
NATIONAL ADVERTISING
Bernard + Associates, 767 Mill St. Reno, NV 89502 jeff@bernardandassociates.com Phone: (775) 323-6828
B&C
O ©MARK MESENKO
Fair Chase is published quarterly by the Boone and Crockett Club and distributed to its Members and Associates. Material in this magazine may be freely quoted and/or reprinted in other publications and media, so long as proper credit is given to Fair Chase. The only exception applies to articles that are reprinted in Fair Chase from other magazines, in which case, the Club does not hold the reprint rights. The opinions expressed by the contributors of articles are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Boone and Crockett Club. Fair Chase (ISSN 1077-4627) is published for $35 per year by the Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801. Periodical postage is paid in Missoula, Montana, and additional mailing offices.
the m o r f s ’ y a d i l o Happy H Crockett Club! Boone and
4 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
FAIR CHASE PRODUCTION STAFF Editor-in-Chief & Publications Chairman Mark B. Steffen Managing Editor Karlie Slayer Assistant Editor Julie L. Tripp Conservation and History Editor Steven Williams Research and Education Editor Winifred B. Kessler Hunting and Ethics Editor Mark Streissguth Assistant Editors Keith Balfourd Jim Bequette CJ Buck Marc Mondavi Jack Reneau Tony A. Schoonen Editorial Contributors Chuck Adams Craig Boddington William A. Demmer Valerius Geist Jim Heffelfinger Theodore J. Holsten Winifred B. Kessler Paul Krausman Doug Painter Daniel A. Pedrotti, Jr. William Porter Jack Reneau Greg Schildwachter Justin Spring Steven Williams Wayne van Zwoll Photographic Contributors Peter Eades Joel Issacs Donald M. Jones Mark Mesenko
N LI NE
Find out more about the topics in Fair Chase online. Look for this icon.
B&C STAFF Chief of Staff – Tony A. Schoonen Director of Big Game Records – Jack Reneau Director of Publications – Julie L. Tripp Director of Marketing – Keith Balfourd Office Manager – Sandy Poston Controller – Jan Krueger TRM Ranch Manager – Mike Briggs Assistant Director of Big Game Records – Justin Spring Development Program Manager – Jodi Bishop Assistant Controller – Abra Loran Associates Program Manager/Graphic Designer – Karlie Slayer Customer Service – Amy Hutchison Records Dept. Assistant – Wendy Nickelson Conservation Education Programs Manager – Luke Coccoli
FROM THE PRESIDENT Predators and Policy Constraints Your previous Fair Chase issue included a summary of the Club’s Triennial Awards Program celebration William A. Demmer held in Reno, Nevada this past July. It was a PRESIDENT Boone and Crockett Club roaring success! Trophy owners from across the country were honored; their trophies on display for five days, which inspired the wonderfully attended event. The Friday evening dinner honored the Generation Next hunters, those who were 16 or younger when their trophy was taken. Attendees were teary-eyed with joy as these young hunters, 40 percent of whom were young women, came on stage, told their story, and were feted and charged with the responsibility of becoming Boone and Crockett Club disciples! Congratulations to you parents who are inspiring such a wonderful generation of new and ethical hunters. Boone and Crockett Members Buck Buckner and Richard Hale, with the assistance of many members and staff, worked hard to create the finest records celebration ever. Work has already begun on the next awards celebration, tentatively scheduled for July 2016. Mark your calendars, as I suspect we’ll have even greater memorable trophies and the opportunity to secure hunts at our auction. The focal point of this issue’s column will be large predators and the associated challenge of policy constraints. Professional Club Members, Bill Porter, PhD, and Greg Schildwachter, PhD, will take you into the weeds on the challenges and opportunities associated with large predator control. For many years, science has concluded that large predators are necessary for an ecosystem to thrive. This tends to conflict with us as
hunters since these large predators can have substantial impacts on the big game we hunt. Aldo Leopold, also a Boone and Crockett Professional Member, recognized that “Harmony with the land is like harmony with a friend. You cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left. That is to say you cannot have game and hate predators.” In Leopold’s essay, “Thinking like a Mountain,” a chapter from his seminal book, A Sand County Almanac, he discussed the issue of unchecked ungulate populations that were browsing the mountainside, highlighting the
used by the first human inhabitants as they crossed over our land in the populating of the Americas thousands of years ago. As I was sitting in a wagon being pulled by two beautiful Percherons with my wife Linda and two Professional Members, Charley Kaye, PhD, and Loren Hicks, PhD, I asked what the purpose of reintroducing wolves was to the Yellowstone ecosystem as the public outcry of protest was just beginning. I asked if the decision to reintroduce a wolf species into the Rockies was to establish some pre-land bridge ice-age balance of animal life in the Rocky Mountains. These two Socrates-like mentors smiled and said, “Listen up Bill. If no land bridge or European settlement of North America had occurred, the predator at the top of the food chain in North America would have been a shortnosed, 2,000-pound bear that could have run a 100-yard dash in 6 to 7 seconds!” Their point was that ever since the first humans crossed the land bridge into Alaska, people (or policy) controlled the destiny of what animals survived and what animals disappeared from the North American landscape. Since animal protein was the most efficient food source for the early humans, those animals that were more easily hunted and that provided a substantial amount of protein were the first to decline, like the wooly mammoth. Also hunted and in decline were predators that competed with humans for protein, like the saber-toothed tiger. By the time the first European settlements were established, ungulate populations in the west survived primarily in those no-man zones between competing North American Indian tribes. The Iroquois tribes of the Mohawk Valley and Ohio River Valley had negotiated amongst themselves that the area of Kentucky would become their protein provider. The seven tribes shared hunting rights throughout
The best way to build policies is to give great consideration to conservation and hunting ethics. This is not merely a moral nicety; it is a moral necessity for keeping predator policy relevant. idea that an unchecked number of ungulates would eventually deforest the mountain, requiring decades of managed care in order to restore it to health. Leopold also recognized that by achieving the proper balance of predator-prey interaction, ecological health of the mountain would be naturally maintained. The big question for us hunters, ranchers, farmers, and nature explorers, is: what is that correct balance between our North American big game species and our large predators? Years ago, I had the chance to spend a wonderful day at our Club’s Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch situated on the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in Dupuyer, Montana. Our ranch has been honored with signage identifying the trail
View from the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch situated on the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains west of Dupuyer, Montana.
The big question for us hunters, ranchers, farmers, and nature explorers, is: what is that correct balance between our North American big game species and our large predators? 6 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
the Kentucky region. The European settlers, led by one of the Club’s namesakes, Daniel Boone, were treading on critical lands used for tribal protein. It should be pretty obvious that for hundreds, if not thousands of years, the outcome of what animals were to survive was determined by the politics and rudimentary policies of the times. What a lesson I received on that wagon ride along the Front Range! Today, as we consider policies that govern our predators, know that the Boone and Crockett Club has been engaged in the issue of predators since its beginning. Aldo Leopold wrote of an apocryphal experience seeing a “green fire” in the eyes of a dying wolf that helped inspire wolf restoration. Today’s Boone and Crockett Club are playing a critical role in securing state management of the gray wolf. Within this issue of Fair Chase, Boone and Crockett Club’s professionals will discuss two key issues surrounding predators, and in particular, wolves. The issues are firstly, the fact that science still has much work and research to perform to understand the long-term relationship between predator and prey. When society reintroduces a large predator, what will that impact be? Science needs to conduct more research and develop tools to provide policy makers with guidance so wolf populations can be managed appropriately, whether for the rancher, the farmer, or for the hunter. The second critical issue is ethics. Most North Americans look at wolf re-establishment from the perspective of their feelings. The policies that evolve must be sensitive to those feelings. The best way to build those policies is to give great consideration to conservation and hunting ethics. This is not merely a moral nicety; it is a moral necessity for keeping predator policy relevant. Policy success rides on both the head and the heart, because quite correctly, American politics demand that we as hunters know and that we care! Your Boone and Crockett Club contributors for this subject include Bill Porter, PhD, Boone and Crockett Chair at Michigan State University, and Club conservation policy guru, Greg Schildwachter, PhD, who is one of the first Boone and Crockett Club doctoral students mentored by Dr. Hal Salwasser, former Boone and Crockett Chair at the University of Montana. Thank you both for all that you do for our Club and conservation. n
Wolves at the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch. As we consider policies that govern our predators, know that the Boone and Crockett Club has been engaged in the issue of predators since its beginning.
BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOUNDED IN 1887 BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT
CLUB Club President William A. Demmer Secretary Robert H. Hanson Tom L. Lewis – Assistant Secretary Treasurer Marshall J. Collins, Jr. Executive Vice President – Administration Timothy C. Brady Executive Vice President – Conservation Morrison Stevens, Sr. Vice President of Administration James F. Arnold Vice President of Big Game Records Eldon L. “Buck” Buckner Vice President of Conservation Stephen P. Mealey Vice President of Communications Marc C. Mondavi Foundation President B.B. Hollingsworth, Jr. Class of 2013 James J. Shinners Class of 2014 James Cummins Class of 2015 CJ Buck FOUNDATION Foundation President B.B. Hollingsworth, Jr. Secretary Tom L. Lewis Treasurer C. Martin Wood III Vice President James J. Shinners Vice President John A. Tomke Class of 2013 John P. Evans Jeffrey A. Gronauer Steve J. Hageman Earl L. Sherron, Jr. C. Martin Wood III Class of 2014 Remo R. Pizzagalli Edward B. Rasmuson James J. Shinners John A. Tomke Leonard J. Vallender Class of 2015 Gary W. Dietrich B.B. Hollingsworth, Jr. Ned S. Holmes Tom L. Lewis Paul M. Zelisko
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 7
Changing Landscapes Series: Predators and Policy Constraints By Greg Schildwachter, William Porter
©WWW.ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/ KENCANNING
Like game management, people have differing needs that they demand managers meet. Even when policy makers can reconcile the competing demands into goals, there is still a lag time between action and response during which pressure rises, debate continues, and second-guessing is fair game.
8 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
The Boone and Crockett Club has engaged the issue of predators since its beginning and continues to do so. Theodore Roosevelt himself presided over the killing of predators on the Kaibab Plateau in the early 1900s, thinking it would create a big-game hunter’s paradise. Aldo Leopold wrote of an apocryphal experience seeing “green fire” in the eyes of a dying wolf that has helped inspire wolf restoration. Today’s Club members played a central role in securing state management of the gray wolf. The wolf is most prominent in predator policy, but skunks, raccoons and even sea lions eating endangered salmon are the more prevalent cases that have shaped predator policy. Deer, elk, and other depredators present a related problem. Unlike most game management, predator policy is about controlling populations, not sustaining or enhancing them. Like game management, people have differing needs that they demand managers meet. Even when policy makers can reconcile the competing demands into goals, there is still a lag time between action and response during which pressure rises, debate continues, and second-guessing is fair game. The challenge is that we are still learning what works, and we need the answers to also make sense to the rest of America. Two main forces challenge us. First, predator ecology is still a developing science, especially for the wolf population in
Yellowstone. Only recently in Yellowstone have scientists, managers, and the public begun to see what is evident on Isle Royale after decades of research: ecosystems do not balance. Instead, factors such as winter weather and disease that limit wolves, and birth and growth responses in elk or moose, alternate in staccato patterns that sometimes cycle, sometimes boom or bust and guarantee that at any given time someone wants more of one or less of the other. Second, as always, we must apply our science and reason to the emotional tides of tradition and myth on which people demand results. People have their own ideas about what works. Furthermore, science may confront us with harsh realities if we find that hunting programs fail to control wolf populations and we must cull. Hunters and trappers will want more opportunity. Nonand anti-hunters will want to know why we cannot let nature take its course. Public opinion confronts us with the age-old problem of superstition, which has always been a plague, but now spreads like a computer virus across the internet. And now, since the public-participation processes became law in the 1960s and ‘70s, those opinions can delay, derail, and disrupt science-based decision-making. The terrain we cross going forward is pocked with the hazards of making conservation policy that works on the ground and also makes sense to people. In reconciling hard science and soft hearts, the proven (if
In reconciling hard science and soft hearts, the proven scientific approach must drive the inner-workings of any policy, and policymakers must appreciate the symbolism by which many people form opinions about wildlife and wildlife policy.
occasionally self-correcting) scientific approach must drive the inner-workings of any policy, and policymakers must appreciate the symbolism by which many people form opinions about wildlife and wildlife policy. Addressing perception in policymaking may be as simple as how we choose labels and how open we are to alternative methods. We may need to abandon antique labels such as nuisance wildlife, varmints, or even predator where it means a broad category of species that cause property damage. Today we could easily apply newer terms, some already in use in game management, for use in predator and damage policies; for example, resident starlings, suburban predators or keystone species. Depredation permits could honestly and accurately be called disease-control permits or health and safety permits. We also have options in how we carry out management. There is a point of view that has been troubling in the conservation of deer and elk that may be useful in future management of predators. To some people, professionals are more acceptable than hunters in controlling overcrowded wildlife populations. Granted, it will be difficult to convince some people that wolves could ever be overcrowded in backcountry big game habitats, but perhaps easier to win approval for intervention by professionals if wolves prove to be uncontrollable using hunting and trapping alone.
To prepare for these challenges, sportsmen must approach predator policy with the same set of ethics applied to all conservation. This is not merely a moral nicety, it is a necessity for keeping predator policy up-to-date. Policy success rides on both head and heart because–quite rightly– American politics demands that you know and that you care. In the throes of the wolf debate in 2010, the Club led a public statement with other renowned big-game conservation groups in which we urged hunters to “turn their anger into passion, speak up, and ask for hard but fair commitments from state and federal government [and] as we seek hard commitments from government, we also need to draw a hard line for ourselves: we are sportsmen, not wolf-haters.” The same call for order applies to all predator policy. Our sport cannot continue without all wildlife under proper management with the support of other Americans. That cannot happen without hunters embracing the entire experience: partaking of and sustaining the game, and also grasping how predators and other wildlife fit in the ecological scene around our chase and also appreciating the drama. For if predators are managed well, one of them may still claim some meat you seek, but at least then it will be a fair chase. n
B&C
O
N LI NE
Learn more about the Club’s position on wolves and large predators.
EXPERTS REAFFIRM BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB POSITION ON WOLVES DECEMBER 11, 2008 The Boone and Crockett Club authored a letter in support of delisting northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves, which was circulated through the Club-founded American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) network. Eighteen conservation organizations endorsed the letter before it was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as official comment on the proposed delisting under the ESA. The letter offered the following six principles to guide federal and state wildlife agencies. 1. When wolf populations meet scientific viability criteria for recovery they no longer require federal protection under the ESA. They should be de-listed if recovery plan goals are met and where regulatory mechanisms are in place to adequately manage the species. 2. After the wolf is de-listed, scientifically sound wolf management programs administered by state wildlife agencies should maintain sustainable wolf populations to preclude the need to re-list under the ESA. 3. Reflecting the success of other historic hunter/conservationist-led species recovery programs, wolves should be managed as big game animals in areas designated for wolf occupancy and wolf seasons should be regulated by the states. 4. Where and when hunting is deemed appropriate under state regulations, methods used by hunters must conform to fair chase principles. 5. When classified as game animals, wolf populations should be maintained in accordance with the biological and cultural carrying capacities of the habitats they occupy. 6. Management of individual wolves and wolf populations should also recognize the need to balance management objectives with respect for private property and human well being.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 9
CAPITOL COMMENTS Conservation Funding for the Future The 16-day government shutdown in October is history, and I, for one, hope we do not repeat history in Steven Williams, Ph.D. January when Congress PROFESSIONAL MEMBER debates spending and Boone and Crockett Club deficits again. In my PRESIDENT last column, I asked for Wildlife Management reasonable compromise. Institute Apparently reasonable compromise was deemed unreasonable, but we should hope for a better resolution in January. Congress is back in session as I write and ready to grapple with the same issues it has punted time and time again– federal deficits and federal debt. Who would have thought that sequestration, a deadfall trap intended to kill a budget impasse, would become the normative mechanism to managing our nation’s spending? Sequestration has become a snare that is holding back important resource allocations that have to take place. Meanwhile, federal agencies have been forced to accept across-the-board cuts, and state fish and wildlife agencies are unable to use a portion of the federal excise taxes collected for and directed to state fish and wildlife conservation. To add insult to injury, these federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery, and fishing equipment are at record high levels. The funds languish in the federal treasury at a time when most state agencies are facing unprecedented conservation challenges and insufficient financial resources. Funding conservation in the U.S. is accomplished in numerous ways. Federal tax dollars fuel the conservation engine for land management agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. Nonprofits and individual philanthropy play a large role in acquiring and/or conserving lands and species. Notable examples are The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Trust for Public Lands, and many others. Conservation organizations like Pheasants Forever and the National Wild Turkey Federation focus their conservation efforts on private landowners
and the use of Natural Resource Conservation Service federal grant funds. The aforementioned federal excise tax dollars apportioned through the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts provide states with roughly $700 million annually for conservation. However, the most significant source of conservation funding for states is license and permit fees paid by hunters and anglers. In 2011, those fees amounted to approximately $1.5 billion. In addition, hunters and anglers also pay their federal taxes, donate to organizations, and purchase firearms, ammunition, and fishing equipment. Although we talk about the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation
some areas of the country. License and permit fees have increased to meet revenue demands, particularly across much of the western U.S. Shane and others have advocated for a wider and more inclusive funding source rather than relying on the hunting and fishing segment of our population. Given the fickle nature of politics and budget allocations at the federal and state level, the vagaries of philanthropic giving, the unprecedented but unsustainable spike in excise taxes, and the financial aspects of hunting and fishing licenses sales, it is clear that future revenue sources for conservation must be explored. What is crystal clear is that expenses for conservation will continue to rise. Resource agencies are contending with the impacts of oil and gas development, solar and wind energy development, climate change, agricultural land conversion, habitat destruction and fragmentation, and a myriad of other issues that affect all fish and wildlife species. These impacts accompany a growing population that currently numbers around 315 million in this country and 7 billion globally. The Boone and Crockett Club, as it has on many occasions in the past, could and should lead the debate about how we address the future funding of conservation in the U.S. Sustainable funding is consistently one of, if not the top, priority of state fish and wildlife agencies in the last two decades. Let’s put the collective knowledge and experience of regular and professional members together to address revenue sources for conservation. In future columns I hope to expand on this topic but it is essential that all of us start thinking now. n
©JOEL ISSACS
Federal agencies have been forced to accept across-theboard cuts, and state fish and wildlife agencies are unable to use a portion of the federal excise taxes collected for and directed to state fish and wildlife conservation. To add insult to injury, these federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery, and fishing equipment are at record high levels.
10 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
as though it includes a funding mechanism for conservation, that is untrue. The model does not address funding per se, perhaps because conservation funding in Canada is quite different than it is in the United States. Our reliance on the American system of conservation funding (the “user pays-public benefits” model) in the U.S. is unique but it is at risk in the future. Shane Mahoney (biologist, writer, and lecturer from Newfoundland, Canada) among others, has rightfully questioned the sustainability of the American system of conservation funding. Hunter and angler numbers have stagnated or declined in
WE ARE WEATHERBY. ED WEATHERBY – President & CEO of Weatherby, Inc. with his Mark V® Ultra Lightweight RC.
NOTHING
SHOOTS FLAT
HITS HARDETERR
OR IS MORE
WEAREWEATHERBY.COM
ACCURATE
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 11
AH
Š DONALD M. JONES
Boone and Crockett
12 nn Fair 12 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
Hunting
Tradition The intimacy of shooting fast and close holds much appeal.
Not long after the blacktail episode I snatched a Savage 99 from the rack and eased into second-growth conifers raggedly thinned. A whitetail sped away, but slowed as he disappeared. Suspecting other deer, I circled crosswind toward a hump with quiet footing, a better view. A handful of deer sifted through the trees ahead, feeding. In a short minute, I had the sight pegged to an opening.
pg 14. DEER RIFLE! by Wayne C. van Zwoll
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 13
Uniquely American, it’s otherwise enigmatic, with no brand name. Millions of hunters own one.
14 nnFair 14 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
Deer Rifle! By Wayne C. van Zwoll B&C Professional Member
Photos courtesy of Author
TOP: Winchester’s 94, the archetypal deer rifle, was built from 1894 to 2006 in New Haven. LEFT: A 90-year-old Marlin 1893 shot this group, despite a rough bore. Nearminute accuracy!
To some hunters a rifle is merely hardware, used a week
in November. During the off-season, it stands in the closet or behind glass, or fills pegs, or the space behind the pickup seat. Silvered steel and scarred walnut attest to days in rough weather and hostile places. It’s still lethal—though a box of ammo lasts years, because none of it gets fired after Thanksgiving. Then there are hunters to whom deer season is merely an excuse to carry a rifle. Those with only several think themselves deprived. They fire rifles when they don’t have to. When a deer shows up, the rifle in hand comes to cheek as naturally as a blink in a dust devil. And the deer usually dies. Hunters in this crowd may or may not insist that rifles have souls. By the end of the 18th century, the flintlock rifle of the northeast had taken a recognizable shape: the “Kentucky” was long and lean with brass furnishings. Its small bore conserved lead. Oddly enough, its archetype came from Pennsylvania shops run by German immigrants. As settlement pushed past forest with relatively few deer into a wilderness with bigger game and fewer gunsmiths, this long-rifle changed. The Southern rifle hurled heavier balls and wore iron fittings. Its spawn, the Plains rifle, had a shorter, big-bore barrel for easy carry on horseback and lethal hits on bison and grizzlies. During the brief period of the Rendezvous, Ohio brothers Jake and Sam Hawken built the most celebrated of these rifles in their St. Louis shop at the edge of the frontier. But the Hawken and kin remained popular for decades into the era of metallic primers and repeating rifles. One of those repeaters had the form and function that would define deer rifle. During the late 1840s Walter Hunt, who also invented the safety pin, developed a lever rifle with a pill-box device to advance primers. A tube under the barrel held a stack of rocket balls—hollow-base bullets with black powder secured in the cavities by paper caps. Gunsmithing by Lewis Jennings, Horace Smith, and Daniel Wesson improved Hunt’s Volitional Repeater; B. Tyler Henry refined it. The Henry rifle, proven by Union troops in the Civil War, fathered the Model 1866 that saved Oliver Winchester’s New Haven Arms Company from bankruptcy. John M. Browning fashioned a stronger lock-up after his dropping-block single-shot action—and designed for Winchester its 1886, 1892 and 1894 rifles. Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 15
Marlin’s 1893 competed with Winchester’s 1894 in the same chamberings. It fathered the 336.
Winchester’s 94, first in .32-40 and .38-55, added the smokeless .30-30 and .25-35 in 1895.
The Browning-designed 1886 brought the lock-up featured in Winchester’s 1892, 1894.
More potent than the .30-30, the .303 Savage was the first cartridge in the 1895 rifle. 16 nnFair 16 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
The Henry must have delighted deer hunters then. But its 216-grain bullet, driven by 26 grains of black powder, ambled along at only 1,025 fps. Hawken muzzleloaders were far more powerful! Ditto the single-shot Remington Rolling Block, Sharps 1874 and (Browning’s) Winchester 1885 cartridge rifles. But a leveraction was slim and lightweight, and delivered a tube-full of firepower at a head-long rate. When Colt chambered its Model 1873 Peacemaker revolver for the .44-40 cartridge Winchester had introduced in its 1873 lever rifle, hunters and homesteaders flocked to buy both. The advent of smokeless powder in the early 1890s brought new rifles and new cartridges to deer hunters. The .44-40 appeared in the shortaction Winchester 1892 and Marlin 1894 lever rifles. In 1895 the .30 WCF (Winchester Center Fire) or .30-30 became our first smokeless sporting round. Winchester announced its Model 1894 rifle in October that year, in .32-40 and .38-55, both black-powder rounds for Ballard target rifles. The new .30-30 and .25-35 appeared as smokeless chamberings in August 1895, when Winchester first cataloged nickel-steel barrels. The .32 Special joined the roster in 1902. With the .30-30, it long outlived the 1894’s original offerings, leaving the line in 1973. Marlin’s 1893 arrived just before Winchester’s 1894. It was bored for the same cartridges: .32-40-165 and .38-55-255 (a .375bore round). Marlin soon added the .30-30 and .32 Special, and the .25-36 Marlin, counterpart to the .25-35 and developed in 1895 by William V. Lowe as the .25-37. The Marlin’s solid-top receiver made it more rigid and weatherproof than the Winchester’s, and would later become a natural platform for scopes. Model 1893 rifles first retailed for $13.75. That, brethren, is less than you’ll pay now to fill a five-gallon gasoline can for your lawnmower. By the time Marlin announced its new Model 36 lever-action in 1936, the 1893 and Winchester’s 1894 had shed their blackpowder rounds. Marlin listed only the .30-30
and .32 Special in the 36. The .32 Special’s 170-grain .321 bullet does just what the .3030’s 170-grain .307 or .308 bullet does, aloft and in deer. But some hunters favored the .32. Ed Broder, for instance. On November 25, 1926, he and two pals drove a 1914 Model T 100 miles from Edmonton to Chip Lake, Alberta. They stopped at a sawmill camp to hire a team of horses and a sleigh, reaching the lake cabin in a foot of snow. Broder grabbed his rifle and, in heavy timber, soon found a large deer track. Trailing for a half mile, he found a fresh bed. The deer could not be far away. “I tracked him into a jackpine swamp. There I found where two moose had crossed. I had to decide between moose and deer.” The moose would likely take longer to reel in. Limited daylight remained; Ed chose the deer. He followed with care. Presently, in a clearing, he spied the buck, back to him. “I’d have to take a spine shot. So I waited until the animal raised its head, then pulled up my .32 Special and fired. The buck collapsed. “I thought, What big antlers!” Nearly 80 years later, Ed Broder’s Alberta mule deer remains, by Boone and Crockett measure, the World’s Record nontypical mule deer. I recently found a century-old 1893 Marlin in .32 Special. Its special-order features (discontinued after WWI) included a 23-inch half-round, half-octagon barrel over a 2/3 magazine, plus a pistol grip and shotgun butt. It was also a takedown rifle, with quarter-turn, interrupted-thread breeching. “The bore isn’t pretty,” conceded the clerk, who obligingly swabbed it for a close look. Outside, the metal had aged gracefully, leaving little blue, but no pits or scars either. Straight-grain walnut showed nary an oil stain or hairline crack. It still mated nicely to the receiver. The wood finish was unmarred and seemed original. Most importantly there was no play in the barrel when cinched snug by hand. I bit on a discount. Later at the range, I thumbed in 165-grain Hornady FTX loads and pasted a fat bullseye at 50 yards. To punch small groups with open-sighted deer rifles, you must make the target big enough to see easily! I like bullseyes three times the bead size as both appear over the barrel. My new Marlin supported by a Caldwell bag, I fired three shots. They drilled a .55-inch triangle—from a bore resembling the inside of a storm drain! That group is even more satisfying given the conventional wisdom of my youth, which held that .32 Special bores failed rapidly once they lost their edge. Their 1-in-16 rifling shed black powder fouling better than the .30-30’s 1-in-12 twist. “But it’s barely
adequate to stabilize bullets even when new,” said the savants feeding Neither the .303 nor early .300 Savage loads the oil-drum stove. “A .32 Special’s like a sheep: just waiting to die. A featured the pointed bullets safely fed through the .30-30 barrel shoots straight until you spool magazines of Model 1895 and 1899 rifles. can’t see rifling at all.” Such sagacity has much in By the time the 1899 became the Model 99 in common with many chat-room 1920, the advantages of pointed bullets were clear. pronouncements today. Another fine deer round too soon dismissed was the .303 Savage. RIGHT: Savage chambered its 1899 It appeared in 1895, a prototype military in .38-55 in 1903, years after it listed round for Arthur Savage’s brilliantly designed the rifle in .303 Savage. Model 1895 rifle. The .303’s 190-grain bullet at 2,100 fps hit harder than its competition and was soon toppling moose and grizzlies Model 1895 and 1899 rifles. By the time the in Canada’s wilds. In 1899 Savage tweaked 1899 became the Model 99 in 1920, the his lever rifle, and a year later chambered it advantages of pointed bullets were clear. But to .30 WCF. The .25-35, .32-40 and .38-55 shot distances were capped by iron sights. followed in 1903 (in chronology almost in In 1930 the exposed-hammer, lever-action reverse order of the 1893 Marlin and 1894 deer rifle faced a new challenge, as 24-year-old Winchester). The .303 gave a little ground Texan Bill Weaver introduced his 330 rifle to the .30-30, more in 1913 to the frisky scope. The three-quarter-inch steel tube .250/3000, wildcatted by Charles Newton for perched in a “grasshopper” mount that lighter, distant game. What killed the .303 resembled a giant paper clip. Scope and was the .300 Savage driving 180-grain bullets mount sold for $19. A heavy post reticle and at 2,450. Oddly, neither the .303 nor early dim image limited the effective reach of this .300 Savage loads featured the pointed bullets 3x. But hunters didn’t complain; their bullets safely fed through the spool magazines of were still shaped like bedrolls.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 17
Wayne likes the clean, open aperture sight on this Bighorn Armory M89. Fast. Precise.
Pointed bullets wouldn’t come to lever-actions until Hornady announced LeverEvolution ammo with resilient plastic bullet tips a short decade ago. But riflemen were firing spitzers from bolt rifles as early as 1905, when the Germans adopted a lightweight, pointed bullet for their 8x57 Model 1898s. It clocked 2,880 fps. The U.S. promptly abandoned the 220-grain .30-06 bullet for a pointed 150 at 2,700. Despite war-time evidence favoring spitzers, .30-06 sporting ammo for Winchester’s Model 54 and Remington’s 30S sporting rifles featured blunt softpoints. Ditto the 7mm Mauser, also chambered in the 54. Winchester’s first pointed bullets for the .270 “ruined too much meat,” wailed hunters. Response: a 150-grain round-nose at a subdued 2,575 fps. It didn’t sell. Eventually bullet makers learned to make jackets and noses that wouldn’t fragment at impact speeds above 2,000 fps but would upset predictably after the bullet had slowed. Jack O’Connor wrote of firing at a buck three times on one of his early hunts, and calling good hits. The deer ran off. O’Connor lined up on a rock and shattered it with his next round. “Let’s find that buck,” he told his pal. They did. All three bullets had drilled neat holes without opening. In 1937 Winchester replaced the 54 with its Model 70. By 1949, bolt-actions like the 70 and new Remington 721/722 were drilled for scope mounts. So too the 99 Savage and 336 Marlin, which LEFT: Wayne killed this Wyoming buck at 30 yards with a Savage 99 in .300 Savage, iron sights.
RIGHT: Charles Newton designed the .250/3000 in 1912—the first highvelocity deer cartridge.
18 nnFair 18 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
replaced the 36 that year. Leupold had announced its first scope, the Plainsman, in 1947, as Weaver introduced its K-series. Lyman’s Alaskan was by then nearly a decade in service. But despite inroads from bolt rifles and cartridges that tapped the potential of optical sights, traditional lever-actions still sold well. In 1953 Marlin added the .35 Remington to its 336 roster, and Winchester presented its two-millionth Model 94 to President Dwight D. Eisenhower! In October of that year Ed Stockwell hiked into Arizona’s rugged Santa Rita Mountains. He and his partner split at the foot of a ridge, Ed taking the high route. Scrambling up into the rocks, he flushed two Coues’ bucks. They topped the ridge instantly and were gone. Ed dashed ahead, but despaired of a shot. The deer had vanished. Turning to descend, he glimpsed movement behind an oak. The biggest buck emerged 60 yards away. Ed fired quickly, killing the deer with his iron-sighted Savage 99. The antlers, he now saw, were huge! Later, they scored over 144—so many inches the Boone and Crockett Club took pains to ensure this was indeed a Coues’ buck—and a new World’s Record! It still is. I started hunting deer about a decade later, with a Short Magazine Lee Enfield that cost $30. The Williams iron sights and a walnut blank from Herters added another $22 or so. The $5 Michigan deer licenses seemed a bigger burden, however, when after three seasons I’d killed nothing. One brazen buck had loped obligingly across a pasture, and I’d launched five precious softpoints past the modest antlers. The only consolation: My pal Ron had emptied his 94 Winchester with the same result. Then, near noon on the last day of the 1966 season, a pair of whitetails rocketed through a stand of poplars. I fired at the lead deer, swinging as if it were a partridge and certain my bullet would not find a path through the trees. To my astonishment, it did. The deer somersaulted 90 yards off.
Deer Rifle! In the rain in a stand of pines, a young buck leaped in front of my muzzle, and fell as fast to what in those days we called a snap shot. Another deer squirted out of a swamp in front of a drive and ran into my second 180-grain Power-Point. Convinced I could shoot more whitetails with a more powerful rifle, I traded the .303 for a Mark X barreled action in .264 Winchester. The Royal Arms stock, of Claro walnut, took the better part of a winter to shape and bed. My first shot split it decisively down the tang, as I’d left wood tighter there than behind the recoil lug. I wept. Restocked, that rifle did kill a buck. But I missed others. Long and cumbersome, it was ill-suited to catch-as-catch-can hunting. I’d have been better off with the .303, or a lever-action carbine. At that time a Winchester 94 cost $89. I envied Ron his—even after The Mistake…. We’d posted Bill on the low corner of a patch of timber. Winding through tangles of wild grapes and honeysuckle was slow going for Ron and me. Rain made it a chore. The woods opened onto a strip of stubble. Struggling over a deadfall, I saw the wink of Bill’s pickup beyond the trees. Ron reached the stubble first, unloading the 94 as he neared the Chevy. As the last cartridge fell into his hand, a buck blasted from a tiny swale at his feet. Ron gaped. Bill stepped from behind the truck and dropped the bounding deer neatly. “Best keep ‘er loaded till yer done huntin’,” he drawled. Time with bolt rifles has eaten into my hunting with lever guns, though one of my best blacktail deer fell to a borrowed 94 I cycled lickety-split as the buck dashed through, cutting over from one alder patch to the next. Three of my four shots struck; the last drilled vitals. The deer expired a few yards farther on. The intimacy of shooting fast and close holds much appeal. Not long after the blacktail episode I snatched a Savage 99 from the rack and eased into second-growth conifers raggedly thinned. A whitetail sped away, but slowed as he disappeared. Suspecting other deer, I circled crosswind toward a hump with quiet footing, a better view. A handful of deer sifted through the trees ahead,
The .30-30 excels on deer, but new Hornady loads in a Winchester 94 claimed this bison.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 19
ABOVE: The first scopes, like this Weaver on a Winchester 92, were fragile, heavy, optically dim. BELOW: Before cartridge rifles, bucks fell to muzzleloaders. This hunter used a modern version.
Deer Rifle! 20 nn Fair 20 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
feeding. In a short minute, I had the sight pegged to an opening. The buck sunfished at the shot and vanished. I found no blood, but a pea-size bit of pink tissue caught my eye on the second pass. The deer had died in mid-stride after making a hard right-angle turn—a common last act of fatally hit game. A deer rifle with reach needn’t deny you close-cover adventure. Once, stillhunting in a dark rain, I stopped for a snack. A buck eased through the buffaloberry beside me, stopping as he walked into my scent. I killed him with a .280 Improved and a 6x scope at 18 yards. Another time, having watched a buck follow a doe into a patch of willows, I swung wide and approached at nightcrawler pace from downwind. My binocular found the doe’s ear, then an eye’s glint from the thick lattice behind, I slipped the Model 70 Featherweight to my cheek, steadied the crosswire above that eye. The buck couldn’t have heard my .308. As flat-shooting rifles can fill your tag up close, so lever guns with iron sights suffice in the open. Once, in dawn’s cold amber light, I muffed an approach across a Wyoming flat. The mule deer bounced across a great wash, up a hill and onto the horizon. Then, evidently feeling a mile was distance enough, he bedded in tall sage. I backed off and bellied into the wash. Hidden by the curve of the hill I ascended it, then crawled forward, cactus firing my knees. As a coyote might stalk a mouse, I eased ahead until I saw antler tips. They were just 20 steps away. I snaked to where the sage beyond the deer lay open to view, then bounced my foot on the earth. The buck rose, took a step into my Savage’s iron sights and collapsed. Over the years deer rifles have become more powerful. When the shortaction Winchester 1892 and Marlin 1894 rifles appeared, chambered for the likes of the .32-20 (a 100-grain bullet at 1,300 fps) and its smokeless spawn, the .25-20 (an 86-grain bullet at 1,450), hunters took them afield. More potent options like the .303 Savage, however, were clearly superior. By war’s end in 1918, many shooters had been exposed to the .30-40 Krag and .30-06. They came to favor the .30-30 over lesser rounds. It killed with authority to the limits of iron-sight range but came in carbines that handled like wands. The 1886 Winchester had more muscle in .33 Winchester and .45-70, but whitetails didn’t die hard. The 1886 and later 71 in .348 got mighty heavy by day’s end. Still, deer rifles of traditional design have bulked up. In 1965 Marlin
announced its 336 in .444, developed by Thomas Robinson and Arthur Burns from the .30-06 hull. Its 240-grain and later 265grain bullets carried 1½ tons of energy out the muzzle. A spate of lever rifles in .45-70 followed. Of modern steel, these aren’t limited to black-powder pressures. The old military load of a 405-grain bullet at 1,300 fps has been trumped by ammunition that drives 325-grain bullets at 2,000 fps. New .308 and .338 Marlin Express cartridges deliver .308and .30-06-class moxy from Marlin’s 1895. Winchester added muscle to its Model 94 with the .375 Winchester round in a beefed-up 94 Big Bore in 1978. It hurled a 200-grain bullet at 2,200 fps, a 250 at 1,900. The .307 and .356 Winchester, on the boards in 1980 and introduced three years later, came as close to duplicating the .308 and .358 rounds as was possible in the rearlocking action. From 20-inch carbines, the .307’s 180-grain bullet clocks 2,360 fps, the .356’s 250-grain 2,050. Add 150 fps for 24inch barrels. Compared to such rounds, early deer cartridges are anemic indeed: 117-grain bullets from the .25-36 Marlin at 1,850; 165s from the .32-40 at 1,450; 255s from the .38-55 at 1,300. Verily, those are mild-steel loads, but even 160-grain softpoints in early .30-30 ammo poked along at just 1,960. These days, with modern loads, even trim, rear-locking lever guns have the punch to down game much tougher than deer. I used a Marlin 336 in .30-30 to take a big Alaskan black bear and two elk, plus a pronghorn. Only one moved more than a few steps: Heart-shot, the bear dashed 50 yards before piling up. Bolt rifles with more muscle now kill most of the deer taken. Even the slide-action 760 and self-loading 740 and 742 Remingtons popular in Northeast whitetail woods have sold best in .270 and .30-06. Milder rounds with small, quick bullets have become deadlier. Still, the .243 and 6mm, the .250 Savage and .257 Roberts, the 6.5x55 and new 6.5 Creedmoor perform best in bolt-actions. The 99 Savage is no more, and the Browning BL-81, an accurate, front-locking lever rifle, has not charmed deer hunters. These days you’ll find many rifles hawked, directly and obliquely, as deer rifles. But if you want the feel of hunting deer before optical sights and fast bullets extended reach, you’ll narrow the definition. Pick up a lithe lever gun, or a vintage bolt rifle bored for a 19th-century infantry round. Squint through its aperture sight, or over the notch. Wrap your hand about its waist. Cheek it, quickly. Can’t put it down? In deer country, you’ll be well equipped. n
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 21
UP CLOS E
HIDE By Chuck Adams
B&C Professional Member Photos courtesy of Author
22 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
AND PERSONAL
WHEN C LO S E M AT T E R S The elk I called Stubby was pacing the edge of a meadow surrounded by trees. More than 30 cows, calves, and satellite bulls were swirling like leaves as Stubby tried to keep his harem together. He was running himself ragged, but I knew the giant bull was still alert for danger. I had been hunting him for more than two weeks. If any one of the elk mob saw me, the magnificent herdmaster would be gone.
I ducked in a shallow draw and scampered closer to the elk. A breeze was fanning my face, and I was not worried about making a little noise. Rutting elk create considerable commotion, and do not spook from little sounds. Key factors in this sort of hunting are concealment and scent control. Five minutes later, I peeked over the edge of the ravine. A raghorn 5x5 trotted past barely 30 yards away. A cow meandered into view about ten yards farther out. And then Stubby’s massive, blunt-tipped 7x8 rack appeared above a rise. He was less than 50 yards away! The cow and juvenile bull drifted out of sight, and I made a snap decision. I hustled across open ground and stopped in front of a tree. Stubby’s antlers glowed in the early-morning light as they came floating toward me beyond the hill.
The purpose of camouflage is to break up the tell-tale human silhouette. Deer and other prey species can see in a wide radius. You should only move when you cannot see their eye.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 23
Seconds later, Stubby strolled into full view less than 40 yards away. He stopped, whipped his head, and looked directly my way. I sucked in my breath and froze. Stubby’s wet nose and brilliant eyes gleamed as he stared. Then he looked the other way. He had not seen me! I drew, aimed, and released. The bigcutting Rage broadhead and Easton Super Slam arrow smashed his ribs like a fist against a drum. He whirled and vanished over the rise…but I knew he would not go far. Half an hour later, I wrapped my hand around Stubby’s massive main beam. The bull later scored 383 points—one of my most impressive elk with a bow. There are several keys to fooling the eyes of a smart, hunter-wise animal like Stubby. The first is well-chosen Chuck bagged Stubby after a careful stalk camouflage clothing. in well-chosen camouflage clothes. Animals Most camo patterns are like this magnificent 7x8 bull can be taken designed to appeal to a customer’s eye up close, but you better bring your A-game. at close range in a retail store. But the best also look great at 100 yards or more. The key to effective camouflage is average deer-hunting backgrounds to Max-1 dramatically contrasting colors. If a pattern for lighter western scenes and AP Snow Camo appears monotone at 30 or 40 yards, it will for mostly white winter settings. For close-range hunting with gun or not break up your human shape the way it bow during seasons that require blaze orange should. Contrary to common belief, animals apparel, Realtree AP Blaze offers a broken like elk, deer, pronghorn, bear, and wild sheep pattern of orange and brown that helps you do indeed recognize a stationary human hide. Most North American animals are shape. If you look like a human, any self- color-blind, and I have stalked within pointrespecting critter will spot you and run away. blank range of many elk and deer that never You must disguise your silhouette with a saw my orange-and-brown camo. By comparison, solid blaze orange appears patchwork of color. A second key to camouflage clothing brilliant white when viewed in black-andis matching the overall hue to average white. This can be a stunning tipoff to spooky hunting backgrounds. In the heavy summer game. Blaze camo is easily seen by other or early-fall woods, camouflage should be hunters and required in most places, yet offers dark. But yellow prairie grasslands, light gray excellent close-range concealment from game. Cabela’s new Zonz System is another sagebrush hills, cactus-studded desert vistas, or snow-covered late-fall slopes require example of what is available in the lighter-colored camo. Against such marketplace. Zonz offers a variety of patterns backgrounds, a standard deep-woods pattern for concealment in any hunting situation. will appear nearly black to wary game. Your You can choose Zonz Woodlands Warm human shape will stand out like the proverbial Phase for early-fall deep-woods hunting, or sore thumb, even if you are standing as still Zonz Woodlands Cold Phase for hunting later after leaves shrivel and begin to fall. For as a statue. Fortunately, a modern hunter has more open country, try Zonz Western Warm many choices in quality camouflage garments. Phase for a pattern of light greens and brown, For example, Realtree offers a wide array, or Zonz Western Cold Phase for a washed-out, from the new and popular Xtra pattern for late-autumn pattern that matches dormant
24 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
shrubs and trees. Check out these and other camouflage patterns on the Internet or at your local store. There is no excuse for closerange hunting without camo that perfectly matches the situation! Camouflage technique is also important in fooling the prying eyes of game. First and foremost, you should never move when you can see an animal’s eye. A deer, elk, or similar prey species can see in a full 270-degree arc. If you can see its eye, the critter can see you—guaranteed. That’s why I waited for Stubby the elk to look straight away before I drew my bow. Second, always creep slowly in the presence of game. Quick movement will catch an animal’s eye every time. Slow movement often goes undetected. Quick movement can be okay to close the gap on your quarry, but only when you are hidden by solid ground or foliage. Third, always try to move or wait with a backdrop that obscures your human shape. With correct camouflage clothes, you do not need to hide behind bushes or trees. I prefer to be in front, where I can see, move, and shoot without obstacles in the way. You should always sneak below the skyline, and always try to follow low ground as you move. There is no better camouflage than solid dirt or rock between you and the animal you are trying to stalk. Fourth, always use sunlight to your best advantage. Stay in the shadows whenever possible. Walking through open sunlight will make you stand out like a D-8 Caterpillar. Hunting toward the rising or setting sun can be a mistake because it impedes your ability to see. Instead, you should dazzle animal eyes as they look toward you by keeping the low morning or evening sun behind you. Finally, when sitting on stand, you should always tuck into pockets of limbs, leaves, or low-growing shrubs. Waiting on a platform attached to a bare tree trunk will not hide you well, and sitting in a ground blind in the wide open is also a formula for failure. Surround your stands with cover, and you will disappear from skittish animals. If you combine sensible camouflage technique with well-chosen camo clothes, getting close to animals is not all that hard! n
In a modern light
Sako 85 Finnlight Sako 85 Finnlight is for those who go deeper into the wild for their enjoyment. On mountain trails, trekked heights and long distance walks, some hunters prefer a lightweight, high performance fullsize rifle.The fluted barrel of the Finnlight is just one of the many features that make it ideal for the hunter seeking a light rifle that’s perfectly trimmed.
SHOT
5 MOA
Designed and crafted from the finest, most durable materials, a Sako 85 Finnlight will take your accuracy to a whole new level.
GUARANTEED ACCUR ACY REDEFINED
/BERETTAUSA
WWW.BERETTAUSA.COM
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 25
B O D DI N G T O N’S CA R T R I D G E
d e t a r Und err a t s r e p u S BY CRAIG BODDINGTON
REVIEW
.280
Remington:
B&C Professional Member Photos courtesy of Author
The .280 Remington is considerably faster and more versatile than the two other common “non-magnum 7mm” cartridges. In actuality it is very, very close to the 7mm Remington Magnum in performance.
7mm-08 Remington
7x57 Mauser
26 nn Fair 26 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
.280 Remington
The 7mm bullet diameter, .284-inch, is the only metric that has achieved great popularity in the United States. The 7mm Remington Magnum has been the world’s most popular belted magnum. It seems to be slipping a bit, perhaps because we now have several 7mms that are even faster. The mild, efficient, and accurate 7mm-08 Remington has a solid fan base, and the ancient 7x57 Mauser retains a small but dedicated following. However, one of our very best and most versatile 7mm cartridges, the .280 Remington, is often overlooked. This is partly a matter of history—and partly a really weird mistake in marketing. The .280 is based on the .30-06 case necked down, but with a slightly shorter neck than the .270 Winchester so it cannot be mistakenly chambered in a .270 Winchester rifle. It was introduced in 1957, not necessarily as Remington’s answer to the long-established .270, but primarily to offer “.270-like” performance in Remington’s slide-action and semiautomatic rifle. It was also offered in the bolt-action Model 721, but this was almost an afterthought. With semiauto and slide-action performance, the primary goal of these factory loads were kept fairly mild—not for safety, but to ensure reliable functioning in these actions (which have less camming power for extraction than bolt actions). We Americans love our velocity, so the .280 rolled along for the next 20 years but never approached the popularity of either the .270 or .30-06. In 1979 Remington decided a facelift was in order, and sales could be enhanced by modernizing the loads and giving the cartridge a new name. Initially they decided on 7mm06, and although I’ve never seen a factory cartridge so marked, the occasional rifle with that rollmark is seen. This was confusing, and it got much worse a short time later when the cartridge was officially renamed 7mm Express Remington. The new loads were indeed faster, approaching the genuine potential of the cartridge—but some consumers confused it with the larger-cased 7mm Remington Magnum. I actually saw this happen once on a bolt action, and the results were spectacular! In 1981 Remington formally—but fairly quietly—returned to the .280 Remington designation. Over the past 30 years, the .280 Remington has continued to roll along. It has never been nearly as popular as the .270 or .30-06, but a lot of manufacturers chamber for it. Selection in factory ammunition is also not as robust, but it’s available in most brands, with the most common bullet weights 140, 150, and 160 grains. How much the confusing name change hurt the cartridge will never be known. It’s entirely possible that its biggest problem is simply that it lies between America’s two perennial favorites, and it’s almost impossible to love equally the .270, .280, and .30-06. This is probably the reason that I haven’t used it all that much, but honestly, it could well be the very best cartridge developed on the redoubtable .30-06 case! The heavier hunting bullets in .284-inch diameter (140 grains and up) tend to be long for caliber, with high ballistic coefficients. So, while it probably isn’t as good for larger game as the .30-06, it shoots flatter and has better ranging abilities. Provided bullets are picked with care, it shoots as flat as the .270 but has the capability of handling heavier bullets (up to 175 grains). This is insider knowledge. The average hunter may pick a .270 for
RIGHT: This whitetail was taken in the Oklahoma sand hills with a New Ultra Light Arms .280. The morning was so foggy that the distance was unknown, but it took about a foot of holdover so Boddington’s estimate of 350 yards was probably close.
open country or a .30-06 for utmost versatility, and either for the greater load selection. A serious rifle nut might instead choose a .280 Remington. Over the years I’ve used it off and on and like it, but it has been the darling of great rifle authorities such as the late Finn Aagaard and Jim Carmichel. Some years ago Remington upgraded its 140-grain spitzer load to 3,000 feet per second (fps), which is plenty fast enough for any and all purposes. 150-grain loads should be about 2,900 fps, and the 160-grain AccuBond from Nosler Custom is a speedy 2,800 fps. All said, however, the .280 Remington is probably at its very best as a cartridge for handloaders. The bullet selection is far more robust, and through careful loading it is usually possible to exceed factory velocities by 50 to 100 feet per second, with one exception: Hornady’s Superformance load with the 139-grain SST bullet is rated at 3,090 fps! With faster loads the .280 treads right on the heels of the vaunted 7mm Remington Magnum—but does it with more compact ammunition and loses less velocity with shorter barrels. Despite my long affinity for both the .270 Winchester and .30-06, I’ve gone through several phases with the .280. I’ve
used it on hunts for Dall’s sheep, bighorn, and caribou; and a tremendous variety of deer: whitetail, Coues’, blacktail, mule deer, and my very best desert mule deer. Never, ever did it let me down, but the shot I remember most was just a few years ago in the sand hills of central Oklahoma. These days we are incredibly spoiled by laser rangefinders. We always know that key variable of range, and knowing that precisely simplifies all else, except that laser rangefinders don’t work worth a darn in fog or precipitation. This was an incredibly foggy morning, the mist so thick that I barely found the knoll top I’d scouted. Once there I could see nothing for more than an hour. Then the clouds started to lift, and I spotted a nice buck across the valley on the far ridge. There was no way to get a range reading, but the buck was a long way off. I took a wild guess at 350 yards. I was shooting one of Mel Forbes’ new Ultra Light Arms rifles in .280, loaded with Winchester Supreme 150-grain Ballistic Silvertips. Continuing to guess, I held just a sliver of daylight over the buck’s shoulder, and at the shot the buck collapsed and rolled to the bottom of the ridge. I haven’t used the .280 since…but clearly there is no reason not to! n
ABOVE: Boddington and Tom Willoughby with a nice California coastal buck, surprised at a waterhole at midday and taken with the .280 Remington. BELOW: The .280 Remington requires a .30-06-length action, but even so this Ultra Light Arms .280 barely weighed six pounds. Initial groups, left, spread a bit, but after the barrel started to break in, the rifle settled down and shot sub-Minute of Angle (MOA) groups.
BELOW: Boddington’s best desert mule deer, taken in Sonora, Mexico, with a Remington mountain rifle in .280 Remington and a 160-grain Nosler partition. The buck was tracked to its bed and taken at about 60 yards.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 27
Disinterested Science The Basis of our Roosevelt Doctrine
By Valerius Geist Ph.D. B&C Professional Member University of Calgary (Emeritus Professor and Founding Program Director for Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Design)
©JOEL ISSACS
There is no shortage of advocacy masquerading as science, as well as lamentable flaws inflicted by scientists themselves, from outright fraud to laziness and inexcusable thoughtlessness.
28 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
When someone insists that their argument is “scientific,” Samuel Johnson’s famous admonition crosses my mind, namely, that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Replace patriotism with science.
Disinterested science, by definition, is research performed without bias. Put another way, a scientist must search for results untainted by selfish motives or advocacy. “Let the chips fall where they may” is a common enough expression. Science has reached such a level of prestige today that all sorts of unscientific material is labeled as such, erroneously even maliciously, and powerful parties in commerce and government try to contain or eliminate science, apparently at any cost. This is not new. And I point to the classical example of Stalinist-Russia trying to bring genetics in line with communist doctrine via the odious Lysenko Doctrine, which falsely maintained that environmentally acquired characteristics were heritable. This politically motivated doctrine wrecked biological and agricultural sciences in Russia, till Russian physicists–embarrassed to the bone the new molecular biology—found ways to eliminate the pseudo-science of Lysenkoism. It is now used metaphorically to describe the manipulation of science as a way to reach predetermined conclusions as dictated by ideology, related to political objectives. However, we are not blameless in the “enlightened” West. Science by its very nature can be an irritant, and while research favoring the biases of funding sources—“bought science” and other forms of dishonesty—are a serious concern, we cannot tolerate big governments and industry undermining science. This is being done by cutting basic ecological and climatic research and monitoring, dismissing and muzzling scientists and of late, librarians, shadowing scientists at conferences with government “handlers” (as once practiced by Iron Curtain countries), using firms which, for a price, will throw doubt on genuine science or even ghost-write fake papers to be planted in refereed journals. It has led to scientists in 17 Canadian cities leaving their laboratories for the streets, taking placards in hand. They decried their government’s war on science, which in turn just announced loudly a richly funded program to generate its “very own science” in opposition to the “science” used by critics. Two kinds of science? As an environmental scientist, I was well aware of hidden agendas to suppress and eliminate vital knowledge, but
unlike current attempts by governments, the bureaucrats were afraid of discovery and were doing it in secrecy. Chinese curse by wishing opponents to live in interesting times, and indeed, we do! Our Club has a longstanding policy on science in wildlife management, a tradition created by Theodore Roosevelt and labeled by Aldo Leopold as the Roosevelt Doctrine. It is a principal pillar of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation: No. 7; Wildlife is to be managed by science. And we expect disinterested science and scholarship. However, the Roosevelt Doctrine is credible and effective in wildlife conservation only if the above abuses of science not withstanding, we subject scholarship to an ongoing housecleaning. Why? Unfortunately, there is no shortage of advocacy masquerading as science, as well as lamentable flaws inflicted by scientist themselves, from outright fraud to laziness and inexcusable thoughtlessness. A long time ago I received a paper for review from a European journal with brilliant results, endorsed by four prominent scientists from leading American universities. By accident of circumstance I had been using the same math, one exceptionally used in wildlife research. The author’s results were so stunningly precise, that they were, literally, too good to be true, which caused me to go over his calculations. I soon suspected that they were cooked. Fortunately, the author claimed that in his calculations he also used values taken from refereed papers. However, I could not find said values in the papers cited. Moreover, there were papers cited which I could not locate. So, I picked up the phone and called the authors of said papers. To make it short: the values were fabricated, as were some of the references. My colleagues at the other end of the phone were quite surprised what they were being cited for. Since some of the mathematical derivations were beyond me, I enlisted the university’s department of mathematics. The derivations were bogus! Is this exposure of pure fraud a case of successful peer review? Hardly. It’s an example of catastrophic failures at quality control and supervision at our most prestigious universities. The fraud took advantage of the reluctance of busy supervisors to learn a simple, though rarely used mathematics. This is but one example of a much larger and ongoing problem in the life sciences, the paucity of understanding mathematics. Biology limits itself largely to statistics, but look at the diversity of mathematics applied to biology as illustrated in D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s 1917 On Growth and Form. It’s a book, as I discovered to my surprise, being read and appreciated by architects and engineers. Investigations into fraud in science raises a troubling warning, namely that competitive environments favor psychopaths that ruthlessly deceive and manipulate. Reflecting on my own work, I note that hypotheses I debunked or advanced using mathematical formulas are roundly ignored. Studies of peer review show that, among other problems, it stifles novelty and innovation. In plain words: there are
North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Pillar No. 7
Managed by Science – The best science available will be used as a base for informed decision making in wildlife management. The intricate nature of ecosystems and biotic communities, of which all wildlife and man belong, will be managed under the knowledge of science rather than opinion, conjecture, or special interest. Boone and Crockett Club founder, Theodore Roosevelt was a strong advocate of science, and that only the best science available was to be used to make critical decisions on natural resource management. The Club began by providing seed money for some of the first wildlife research projects. Under the leadership of member, Aldo Leopold the Club began formulating flexible scientific management policies for wildlife and natural resources to achieve an ecological balance. The Club also called for the first President’s Conference on Outdoor Recreation, which lead to the establishment of the National Recreation Policy, which coordinated resource management at federal, state, and local levels. Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 29
©DONVEGA VIA FLICKR / THE HOUSTON MUSEUM OF NATURAL SCIENCE
manuscripts, critical of current orthodoxy that are languishing in file drawers, unable to get past reviewer prejudice and editorial rejection, citing (conveniently) editorial limitations on journal space. Yes, there is awareness of this, but it’s an uphill battle. Environmental organizations are fairly successful advancing the view that they, and not their critics, are the true purveyors of science. One favorite claim is that such and such policy would restore the balance of nature. Who remembers that the great Charles Elton, the father of ecology, rejected that notion? Unfortunately, enough biologists have fallen for that notion, not realizing that ecological balance is untenable in principle. It is based on the mistaken analogy of physiological or biochemical balance processes within individuals. Such balances (i.e. blood sugar) are based on negative feedback; whereas populations of organisms within ecosystems can operate only on positive feedback. This means that populations use resources (selfishly) in competition with other populations to the limits of their abilities. That can lead, temporarily and unpredictably, as to level or duration to a kind of balance illustrated by two sumo-wrestlers pushing against one another in temporary stasis to the limits of their strength. Now, the above theoretical explanation is not an easy one to digest, so that I applaud, for instance, William Porter, Boone and Crockett Club Professor at Michigan State University, who showed in the fall 2013 edition of Fair Chase that– empirically–two studies on wolf versus prey have not shown the expected balance and were not likely to do so in the future. Still, all efforts notwithstanding, I harbor no illusions that the fallacious balance-of-nature argument will go away soon–if ever!
Another hollow illusion of significance is the “it is natural” argument, followed by the admonition to “let it be and hands off” because “nature knows best.” What a lovely excuse to abscond from reading, studying, and thinking! So, you think the forestcovered landscapes, especially in national parks, are “natural?” Let’s make a tiny, tiny step backward in geological time, a mere 11,000 years. Five species of ground sloths then roamed North America from Panama to the Yukon, the largest located in what is the current U.S. exceeded African elephants in size, and the smallest, a mere grizzly-bear- sized midget. Tree-shredders all! And they were ably assisted by American mastodons, Colombian mammoth and brush shredders like the giant camel and lamas. Poor trees! And yes, the tree-shredders did a grand job clearing open spaces. If not, the speedy pronghorn and that, which drove its evolution, the American cheetahs would not have existed. Nor the fleet-footed American horses. Nor would the American bison, then geared for speed just as were the muskoxen then. These cursors or high-speed runners needed wide, open spaces to exist. Today’s bison, dwarfed since those days, are geared for power, not speed. Tree covered landscapes speak to the extermination of the mega-fauna by humans. And please, do not think that’s irrelevant to current policies and concerns. Look at the devastating forest fires in California or Arizona, or Idaho or the brush fires in Australia. They are a direct consequence of modern environmental protectionism or “let it be” non-management. Under natural conditions mega-herbivores continually reduce fuel build-up, which results in small, benign wildfires. Conversely, exterminate mega-herbivores and wildfires result from
Like it or not, counterproductive policies of letting nature run free, protectionism, are not based on science, although the alternative, hands-on management, is not free of difficulties either. Still, if we take seriously the Roosevelt Doctrine, that management of wildlife should be based on the best science available, a continuous housecleaning of our knowledge is inescapable. No matter how worthy the cause, advocacy is poison to science.
30 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
horizon to horizon. These almost certainly did in much of the biodiversity and explain the huge post-glacial loss of our native birds. Native people, here and in Australia, were caught in that dilemma shortly after they destroyed the mega-fauna. Consequently, they began to manage landscapes via controlled burning first for safety, and secondly for the rich return in plant and animal foods. Looking at today’s destructive fires here and in Australia, it appears that we still have to learn that elementary lesson, excepting the ignored scientists and managers that long ago recognized the need for controlled burning. Tree-covered landscapes today are an unnatural human artifact, probably not seen since the days after dinosaur extinction. The belief in the sanctity of forested landscapes is so potent, that elephants become “evil” for deforesting parks in Africa; or introduced moose in Newfoundland for changing the forest cover, affecting some songbirds. The African elephant example is, of course, an illustration of the negative consequences of the “nature knows best” non-management approach. Lost in these simple-minded assessments is the effect of the mega-fauna in generating living conditions for other biota. I was an unhappy witness to the effects on wildlife of a dairy operation being shut down, with the loss of impact on the land by dairy cows, a proxy for a mega-herbivore. Within three years, large swarms of over-wintering American widgeons (short-grass feeders), as well as green-winged teals, Canada geese, Trumpeter swans, pheasants, killdeer, whip-poor-wills, night herons and nesting Wilson’s snipe disappeared completely. Tall grass surrounding ponds extinguished mallard nesting, as ducklings could not forage in the tall, dense grass now grown for hay. Songbird abundance
The giant sloths roamed North America from Panama to the Yukon.
and diversity dropped precipitously and we had empty swallow nests. The deer population dropped to about half the original number, and we noted a big decline in grazing by black bears. The close cropping, trampling, and manuring by the Holstein dairy cattle that had maintained a rich biodiversity was now sharply reduced by the beautifully green tallgrass hay-meadows. Like it or not, counterproductive policies of letting nature run free, protectionism, are not based on science, although the alternative, hands-on management, is not free of difficulties either. Still, if we take seriously the Roosevelt Doctrine, that management of wildlife should be based on the best science available, a continuous housecleaning of our knowledge is inescapable. No matter how worthy the cause, advocacy is poison to science. Our understanding of wolves was seriously lacking due to a misdirected avoidance of historical evidence. Shirked currently is the inescapable conclusion that the genome of wolves cannot be maintained in settled landscapes due to the inevitable hybridization with dogs. Hydatid disease, a parasitic disease introduced by wolves and often disabling or fatal to humans, comes with deadly consequences if transferred to ranch dogs, exposed to wintering populations of hydatid cystinfected elk and deer. Ranch kids are seriously at risk. Why would one treat hydatid disease in a caviler manner? The domestication of wildlife is a primary source of disease transfer to humans, but tends to be overlooked. But so is the conclusion that public wildlife, managed for public consumption, is highly productive of wealth and employment. We need ongoing reminders that our abundance and diversity of wildlife was never a nostalgic leftover from the good old days, but the result of hands-on management, aimed at bringing back wildlife as a public good. It and other omissions underline the importance of history, policy analysis as well as science; that is, a broad approach to scholarship crossing disciplinary lines. Science cannot thrive as the great public good, which it is, without a thoroughly disinterested, open approach, let alone unvarnished public accountability. Let us never forget, science in wildlife management decision-making is but a tool to pair with historical scholarship. It is rarely an instrument all to itself. “Science informed� is the proper discharge. n
POSITION OF THE BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB
Adopted 6/13/2013 by Boone and Crockett Board of Directors
Use of Science in the M anagement of Wildlife Situational Overview The United States and Canada pioneered wildlife conservation through the creation and institutionalization of a science-informed wildlife profession. However, wildlife management, as documented by the Wildlife Management Institute, is not merely getting the science right; it has always had a political dimension owing to the public nature of the resource and management in the public trust by agencies of federal, provincial, state, tribal, and First Nations government agencies.
Position The Boone and Crockett Club supports science-informed management of wildlife. Use of science in decision making is one of the pillars of North American wildlife conservation and was instrumental in the restoration of wildlife across the continent. Decision-making authority should be placed in agencies and citizen commissions or boards dedicated to upholding the public trust. Agencies should inform decisions on wildlife management policy and practice through critical thinking, applying social and biological sciences, experience, and societal values as appropriate to choices being made.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 31
KE E P TROP H Y R EC O R D S H O N ES T:
MAINTAINING ACCURATE TROPHY RECORDS ALONG THE BLACKTAIL/MULE DEER BOUNDARY
By Jim Heffelfinger, Boone and Crockett Club Professional Member Arizona Game and Fish Department
Emily Latch, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee,
Elizabeth Kierepka, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee,
Olin E. Rhodes, Jr., University of Georgia, Savannah River Ecology Lab Photos courtesy of Arizona Game and Fish Department
Deer Diversity
Mule deer and their blacktail deer subspecies are distributed throughout western North America from the coastal islands of Alaska to southern Baja, Mexico, and from the Mexican state of Zacatecas to the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and southern Yukon Territory. Within this wide range of distribution, mule deer have adapted behaviorally and physically to local habitats and ecological conditions. These local adaptations have been described through the years as subspecies based on differences in fur coloration, antler shape, body size, the appearance of their tails, and the size of the metatarsal gland. These subspecies designations have not been rigorously tested and many subspecies are probably not valid.
This genetic difference between blacktail and mule deer arose because a population of early blacktail/mule deer ancestors was isolated along the Washington and Oregon coast by the Ice Age glaciers sometime during the Pleistocene.
This article is the second in a series reporting several years of deer DNA research supported by Boone and Crockett Club’s Conservation Research Grants Program and its partners. Read the first article in the Winter 2012 issue of Fair Chase.
32 nnFair 32 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
BELOW: Blacktail deer having a black upper tail surface, smaller body size and antlers, and a shorter metatarsal gland. This blacktail deer was taken in King County, Washington, in 2010.
O/A OR GE AN DR EJK PH OT O BY GE
ZG FD
is that w e ca n’t ue for the Club d The importan t iss ca tegory pollute bla ck ta il records e us ca be ly ha ve the smaller on big an imals that are w ith new record . er de le they are pa rt mu
However two subspecies, the Sitka and the Columbia blacktail deer in the Pacific Northwest, do appear to be different from all other mule deer subspecies in several ways. These differences and their implications to management and records keeping were the subject of a study recently completed by researchers working with the Boone and Crockett Club in collaboration with University of WisconsinMilwaukee, Pope and Young Club, Dallas Safari Club, Seattle Chapter of Safari Club International, California Deer Association, Camp Fire Club of America, Purdue University, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This research is part of a huge North American deer genetics project that started in 1996 and continues today. Deer Divergence
The Boone and Crockett Club recognizes typical and non-typical entries for these three records-keeping categories of big game: the Sitka blacktail deer, Columbia blacktail deer, and mule deer. These three type of deer look very different physically with blacktail deer having a black upper tail surface, smaller body size and antlers, and a shorter metatarsal gland (this gland sometimes differs among deer subspecies and is used as a defining characteristic). Genetically, blacktails also have very different mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) than mule deer. MtDNA is not the nuclear DNA that is inherited from both mother and father and that codes for visible traits. Rather, it is DNA that resides in the cell outside the nucleus and so offspring get all their mtDNA only from their mother. This type of DNA is inherited down through the mother’s side of the family just like a human’s last name is traditionally passed down through the male’s lineage. This genetic difference between blacktail and mule deer arose because a population of early blacktail/mule deer ancestors was isolated along the Washington and Oregon coast by the Ice Age glaciers sometime during the Pleistocene. The isolation was for a long enough period that after glaciers receded, these two forms of deer were somewhat different physically and genetically, but close enough to still reproduce. Today the distributions of the two subspecies remain in contact and the result is a zone of hybridization along the crest of Cascade Mountains. This hybridization along the boundary between Columbia blacktails and mule deer in northwestern North America created a pressing research need for the Boone and Crockett Club. It was widely known for quite some time that deer do hybridize along the crest of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington. In fact local hunters sometimes call them benchleg bucks. There is nothing wrong with their legs, but this nickname clearly shows the local acknowledgment of this zone of hybridization. The important issue for the Club is that we can’t have the smaller blacktail records category polluted with new record animals that are big only because they are part mule deer.
This Sitka blacktail was taken on Kosciusko Isla nd, Alaska.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 33
Using Little Genes to Answer Big Questions
The focus of the current research was to: 1) describe the extent of hybridization between blacktails and mule deer along the Cascades in Oregon and Washington; 2) evaluate the appropriateness of the currently recognized boundaries between the two types; and 3) develop a genetic test to diagnose animals that are not pure mule deer or blacktail deer.
UO DA OT T MC CO RQ PH OT O BY SC
LE
deer bucks that larger mule On e migh t think er bla ck tail all sm out- compete would be able to being born to in mo st hybrids bucks an d result e ca se. t this wa s no t th bla ck tail do es, bu
Samples were analyzed with a suite of 10 microsatellite markers (a way to identify genetic differences), with suspected hybrids subjected to mtDNA sequencing. We analyzed the microsatellites using a computer program that placed every individual deer into one of two genetic groups: mule deer or blacktail deer. The analysis resulted in a “q-value” for each deer between 0 and 1, with 0 being a pure mule deer and 1 being a pure blacktail. Because of genetic variability, most deer are not absolutely 0 or 1 so we first had to account for this.
34 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
We had collected 2,800 deer tissue samples from all over North America but re-sampled the zone of contact more intensely for this aspect of the study. The contact zone extends from Northern California northward into British Columbia, but we chose to focus our research in the heart of it all—Oregon and Washington. With the help of deer hunters and state biologists, we obtained 410 samples with accurate locations. These samples were analyzed with a suite of 10 microsatellite markers (a way to identify genetic differences), with suspected hybrids subjected to mtDNA sequencing for additional information. We analyzed the microsatellites using a computer program called Structure that placed every individual deer into one of two genetic groups: mule deer or blacktail deer. The analysis resulted in a “q-value” for each deer between 0 and 1, with 0 being a pure mule deer and 1 being a pure blacktail. Things are not always this clear-cut, however. Because of genetic variability, most deer are not absolutely 0 or 1 so we first had to account for this. The first step was to determine the range of values that represent pure blacktails and pure mule deer. We did this by going to ou r Nor t h American sample c ol le ct ion a nd selecting mule deer and blacktails from areas too far from the contact zone to be contaminated by hybridization (Idaho, Mo nt a n a , and northern British Columbia). After looking at the range of variability in these pure animals, we then knew that animals
from the contact zone with q-values outside these ranges probably were not pure. First-generation hybrids (F1) will have a q-value between the two parental types: near 0.5, but again, not exactly. To estimate the range of q-values for F1 hybrids, we used the computer to simulate matings between pure blacktails and pure mule deer to see what range of q-values we could expect to find in F1 hybrids. Q-values between 0 and 0.12 were indicative of pure mule deer and those between 0.9 and 1 were pure blacktail deer. We defined any animal with a q-value between 0.34 and 0.67 as an F1 hybrid. Any animal that was not a pure individual or an F1 hybrid was probably the result of a hybrid breeding back (back-crossing) to one of the parent types or to another hybrid. Once we had the limits and range of values for these three categories defined (both pure parent types and their F1 hybrids), we now could test animals in the blacktail/mule deer contact zone for hybridization. Using a scoring system of q-values like this, we can be fairly confident in our designations of the pure parent types, and those that are not pure. These defined ranges allow us to test individual animals on the scale of 0 (mule deer) to 1 (blacktail) and also to evaluate the extent of hybridization and back-crossing occurring in the contact zone. We know that the mule deer on the east side of the Cascade range and the blacktails on the west side meet up on the crest of the mountains in summer. Since they don’t migrate down to lower elevations until after most of the breeding is done, biologists have long recognized there is a zone of hybridization where they meet. When we looked at the distribution of pure and hybrid deer, we clearly saw that most deer sampled are one of the pure parent subspecies, but obviously a lot of hybridization is going on. Since we had locations where each deer was collected, we then color-coded those locations according to that deer’s q-value to describe the pattern of hybridization in this area. We found that hybridization along the zone of contact was bidirectional and symmetrical, which means there were hybrids with both mule deer and blacktail fathers and this occurred in equal proportions. Of all the F1 hybrids, exactly half were fathered by mule deer bucks and half by blacktails. One might think that larger mule deer bucks would be able to out-compete smaller blacktail bucks and result in most hybrids being born to blacktail does, but this was not the case. We have some samples far from the contact zone with q-values indicating they are first generation hybrids, but these are most likely some second or third generation hybrids that
K E E P T R O P H Y R EC O R D S H O NE S T:
MAINTAINING ACCURATE TROPHY RECORDS ALONG THE BLACKTAIL/MULE DEER BOUNDARY
have backcrossed with pure or hybrid individuals resulting in a q-value back in the range of F1 hybrids. These hybridizations have been occurring for a very long time and there is a wide variety of different combinations of mule deer and blacktails out there.
North Cascades NP
Olympic NP
Using what we learned
405
Mount Rainier NP 5
82
Crater Lake NP
Redwood NP
LI N
E
Read past issues in our Associates Community.
Blacktail Deer
84
Hybrid Deer Mule Deer B&C Boundary DNA Analysis Line
B&C
ON
90
The article Drawing the Line (Summer 2009) discusses the different characteristics of blacktail and mule deer.
PHOTO BY MIKE MIDDLETON/MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE.
The state agencies in Washington and Oregon have a long-established management boundary that they recognize as the division between mule deer and blacktail deer. This boundary is very similar to the records-keeping boundary used by Boone and Crockett Club and Pope and Young Club. When we look at the location of all the pure individuals, we see that the Boone and Crockett boundary does a good job of defining the geographic division between these two deer types. Deer movement data from radio-collared deer in these two states are also consistent with the currently recognized boundary. Boone and Crockett Club is already putting these results to use to keep trophy records accurate. The Club has developed a set of four guidelines to use in evaluating a deer that is questionable because of its harvest location or physical appearance. The first guideline is simply the physical characteristics of the animal. There are well-known physical differences in coat color, metatarsal gland size, and antler shape. Secondly, the q-value is a powerful piece of information that allows us to base decisions on real data rather than simple appearance. Animals with a q-value between 0 and 0.12 are indicative of pure mule deer. On the other end of the scale, those deer with q-values of 0.9 to 1 are within the range of values for pure blacktail deer. The third guideline is to consider what kind of mtDNA the animal in question has. If a first generation hybrid with a mule deer mother breeds back to a blacktail buck, her offspring will be three-quarters blacktail
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 35
and yet have mule deer mtDNA (from its mother and grandmother). If that female second generation hybrid breeds with a blacktail buck, we now have a deer that is seven-eighths blacktail, but has all mule deer mtDNA because it is passed down through the female line as a complete package. Some deer tested might actually look very blacktaillike, but the presence of mule deer mtDNA helps us identify hybridization in its past. Lastly, we can consider what are called “subspecies-specific alleles.” These are genetic markers from the microsatellite analysis that are always, or almost always, found in either mule deer or blacktails. If a certain genetic marker is found in mule deer 99.8 percent of the time and we find it in a deer thought to be pure blacktail, it causes us to scrutinize that specimen a little more closely. Some of these guidelines may not work out 100 percent of the time when used alone, but together the suite of four guidelines offer a powerful and data-driven way to inform a trophy records-keeping decision. Records Program Integrity
We documented extensive hybridization between mule deer and blacktails along the Cascade crest of Washington and Oregon and that has serious implications for records-keeping. This hybridization is occurring in both directions and with equal frequency on both sides of the zone of contact. There is nothing we can do about the existing level of hybridization; however, these are two well-supported trophy categories. Therefore we have to acknowledge the presence of this zone of hybridization and make sure the dividing line is in the most logical place given the best available data. It is very important to Boone and Crockett Club that trophy records are kept free of errors. Genetic contamination results in records contamination. With the smaller blacktails as separate records categories, it is very important that none of those highranking bucks contain a large dose of mule deer. It is well known that mixing two species or subspecies often results in “hybrid vigor,” where the hybrid offspring are larger than either parent for at least the first generation. It is very easy to see the problems associated with hybridization between these categories. So far the Club has used this protocol to test eight individual deer to assure the integrity of the records categories. Of those eight deer, one was confirmed to be pure mule deer, six were found to be pure blacktails, and one was identified as a hybrid from northern Oregon. The pure animals were celebrated at the 28th Big Game Awards 36 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
Program in Reno, Nevada, earlier this year. The entry application of the hybrid deer was removed from the records. We may not be able to tell a hybrid’s exact pedigree by percent, or even if it is a first or second (or more) generation hybrid, but that is not important. What is important is that we can confirm the purity of an individual deer as defined by the Club before Ke vin E. Brett w ith his typi cal Columbia blac allowing it to be entered in the ktail. It w as DNA tested to receive its records book. aw ard at the 28 th Big The Club now has a G ame Aw ards Ba nquet. protocol for how questionablelooking deer and suspected hybrids will be processed and dealt with in a fair and transparent way. In the future, if the Club has reason to suspect a deer is not a pure representative of one category or the other, the person submitting the trophy will be required to have the deer tested with this approved protocol to show that it is not a hybrid as defined by the Club. It is not possible, nor practical, to require animals already in the book to be tested so the best we can do is to scrutinize entries from this point forward. Finally, after years of trying to keep records clean and accurate by relying on physical characteristics, we now have a much more informed process upon which to base records-keeping decisions. n Jim Heffelfinger is a Professional Member of the Club and this study was part of a larger research effort supported by the Boone and Crockett Club’s Conservation Grants Program and its partners to use genetic analysis to inform practical decisions on wildlife management and records-keeping integrity. Visit www.deernut.com or follow Jim on Twitter: @Gametrax. Dr. Emily Latch and Elizabeth Kierepka represent the Latch Laboratory of Applied Evolutionary Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Dr. O.E. Rhodes, Jr., is the Director of University of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology Lab. NOTE: Deer nomenclature in this article follows names standardized for all Boone and Crockett publications
Samples were taken from J. Nyles Stierna’s Columbia blacktail at the Judges Panel held for the 28th Big Game Awards Banquet. All three Columbia blacktail had samples taken and were tested. DNA kits are available at B&C headquarters.
BEST OF 2013 The Boone and Crockett Club has a tradition of honoring trophies and the fair chase hunts that produce them, including photographs from the field. In keeping with this tradition, the Club, and Swarovski Optik want to celebrate some of the best examples of
SPONSORED BY
field photography, and share them with you in each issue of Fair Chase. For the fifth year, our editors will be sifting through hundreds of field photos looking for exemplary trophy field photography.
The most outstanding examples will be featured in the Spring 2014 issue with the top three being awarded prizes provided by Swarovski Optik.
NOTE: All field photographs from accepted trophies entered in 2013 are eligible
ih a r t I I e e r k R. Sw D F r e d r ic a l W h it e t a il ic No n -t y p a 215 -3/8 e s C o u n t y, Io w in o M s e D 2 012 O c t ob er
M ic h a e l J. C a r p in it B ig h o r n Sheep | 1 o 8 A so ti n C o u n ty, W 5 -2 /8 a s h in g to No v e m b e n r 2 012
B la ir K . M it c h e ll T y p ic a l M F r e n c h m u le D e e r | 181 No v e m b a n R iv e r s , S a s k e r 2 012 a tc h e w a n
WINNERS RECEIVE FIRST PRIZE STM 65 HD Spotting Scope
SECOND PRIZE EL 10x42 WB Binoculars
THIRD PRIZE Z3 3-9x36 Rifle Scope
WINNERS WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN THE NEXT ISSUE! Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 37
THE BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB
hunt
Camaraderie Passion
WE NEED YOU TO SHARE THE If you believe that... n ethical, fair chase hunting is the one sure way to ensure that hunting will continue to be supported by the majority of those who do not hunt, and n you know people who hunt as you do and believe as you do, and n you both are concerned about the nonsense that is being sold to the public as representing all hunting, then
Daniel Jarboe took this typical whitetail deer in 2011 while hunting with his friends in Ohio County, Kentucky. The bucks scores 164-7/8 points.
A Gift for You!
Show your support for B&C by signing up your fellow hunter-conservationist as an Associate. For signing up a Sponsor or Sportsman Associate you will receive a wildlife photography gift card set*. Gift subscriptions must be purchased by phone.
Please
sign up as many of your friends as possible to join you as a B&C Associate.
“Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal.� - Aldo Leopold
This set of 8 greeting cards is also available for purchase*. ITEM CODE: WCARD | $10.00
*while supplies last
Show Your B&C Pride You should have received your B&C decal in the mail! Put this decal on your car, laptop, or wherever people will see it. Share a picture of your decal in action. Thank you to B&C Associate Andy LeRoy for sharing his photo with our Facebook fans! @BooneAndCrockettClub #BooneAndCrockettClub 888-840-HUNT | www.Boone-Crockett.org 38 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
A.C. Smid would like to thank the Guides, Outfitters & Hunters for their passion in keeping
“Healthy places for people & wildlife�
Hunt Fair Chase Decals
NEW!
Show your support of the Club with these B&C window decals. There are four options sure to showcase your passion for whitetail deer, mule deer, elk, and sheep. These are custom cut transparent vinyl stickers that are silkscreen printed and extremely durable for all weather conditions. Each decal is about 3.75” wide. ITEM CODES: WHITETAIL | DECWT ELK | DECEK
MULE DEER | DECMD SHEEP | DECSH
$5.00 EACH | SHIPPING AND HANDLING INCLUDED
90% Jacket
The 90% is a mid-weight jacket built to work with you while powering up hills. Designed for the active hunter, the 90% Jacket is built of a durable, and breathable, 2-way stretch, DWR treated soft shell material. Available Optifade or Charcoal – M-XXL OPTIFADE: JKS90 | $249.95 CHARCOAL: JKS90C | $229.95
MONTANA SLING TIGHT TO YOUR SHOULDER – READY IN SECONDS
Pack your hunting rifle in complete comfort all day long with this premium leather sling that adjusts from carry position to shoulder-ready in only seconds. Single loop design with an innovative sliding knot never over-tightens; can be adjusted instantly with a minimum of effort when your quarry is sighted. Makes the perfect choice as a comfortable, dependable carry sling or helps improve accuracy when used as a hasty sling. Made from thick, high quality, U.S. tanned bridle leather; loop is retained with hand stitched nylon thread. Includes sling swivels. MTRS | $39.95
Stratus Jacket
The Stratus Jacket is your go-to, mid-weight jacket, built with WINDSTOPPER fabric, for quiet, close encounters. Featuring a new concealment pattern, Forest, developed by GORE. Available L-XXL JKSST | $249.95
Sitka Traverse Beanie HTBEAN | $29.00
Call 888/840-4868 to order, or order online www.Boone-Crockett.org 40 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
B ACK IN ST O CK !
GIVE A B&C BOOK TO YOUR FAVORITE HUNTING PARNTER! BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB’S 28TH BIG GAME AWARDS This 704-page volume is the most up-to-date big game records book available with a complete listing of over 4,900 trophies accepted in the 28th Awards Program. Each listing includes the B&C gross score along with the B&C final score, selected measurements, location and date of kill, hunter and owner, as well as the rank based on the B&C final score in the 28th Awards Program. ■
What sets this publication apart from other books are the tales of the hunts for 95 of the top North American big game animals entered in the Club’s 28th Awards Program, including a new World’s Record for Rocky Mountain goat. In this book you will also find hundreds of photographs — portraits of the 95 top trophies, hunters in the field, and a special 32-page color section of the best field photos from the 28th Awards Program, not to mention 17 score charts including the measurements for the top trophies.
■ ■ ■
Hardcover with dust jacket 7 x 9 inches 704 pages 275 B&W and 60 Color Photos
BR28 | $49.95 ASSOCIATES PAY ONLY $39.95
Who’s Listed?
All trophies accepted by the Boone and Crockett Club’s Big Game Records Program between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012, that meet or exceed the Club’s entry requirements.
A TRUE COLLECTOR’S EDITION! Only 3,000 copies of the hard cover edition are available; no more will be printed. Don’t delay, order your copy before they are sold out!
A MULE DEER RETROSPECTIVE VINTAGE PHOTOS AND MEMORABILIA FROM THE BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB ARCHIVES Some of today’s most respected mule deer experts—Guy Eastman, Jim Heffelfinger, Miles Moretti, Ryan Hatfield, and Wayne van Zwoll—collaborated with the Boone and Crockett Club on its newest book, A Mule Deer Retrospective! ■ Hardcover with dust jacket Sportsmen with an eye for the good ol’ days of big game ■ 8 x 10 inches hunting will delight in B&C’s visually stunning book focusing ■ 304 pages ■ Over 300 Color and B&W Photos on the iconic mule deer of the West with hundreds of vintage BPMDR | $34.95 photographs and score charts. Also included are chapters about ASSOCIATES PAY ONLY $27.95 the status of mule deer, the history of the Kaibab Plateau, women deer hunters, and detailed accounts of dozens of noteworthy mule deer trophies recognized by B&C. No one can deny that the Golden Era of mule deer hunting happened decades ago with nearly 80 percent of the top 50 mule deer recognized by the Boone and Crockett Club being taken before 1976—some taken as far back as the 1800s. With the vast amount of photographs, entertaining correspondence, and historical trophy data, A Mule Deer Retrospective will not disappoint!
MORE VINTAGE HUNTING!
If you like reading about the history of hunting and examining vintage hunting photographs, you might also be interested in the other Retrospective books B&C has available.
SPECIAL HOLIDAY OFFER!
Boone and Crockett Club’s Big Game Retrospective Collector’s Set! Includes all three B&C Retrospective books in a custom slipcase. Priced at just $99.95—this makes a terrific gift for the sportsman on your holiday list. Limited quantity, while supplies last! A WHITETAIL RETROSPECTIVE
AN AMERICAN ELK RETROSPECTIVE
BPWDR | $34.95
BPAER | $34.95
ASSOCIATES PAY $27.95
ASSOCIATES PAY $27.95
ITEM CODE: BPRS | $99.95 | ASSOCIATES PAY ONLY $79.95
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 41
THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB
The Founding Fathers of Wildlife Conservation in America By Doug Painter Reprinted courtesy of Sporting Classics magazine November/December 2013 Photos courtesy of B&C Archives
The tall prairie grass bent and swayed against the wind, creating a ripple effect like surging waves on a vast sea rolling onward to an ever-distant horizon.
The bison was the unrivaled lord of these vast western grasslands that spread from the Mississippi Valley to the Rocky Mountains and from western Canada through Texas and into northern Mexico. Farther west, between the Rockies and Cascades, vast tracts of grasses and parklands served as home to bison as well. It is estimated that original bison numbers were between 40 and 60 million with regional herds, each numbering in the millions themselves, migrating in a roughly circular path of some thousand miles or more. Noted wildlife scientist and historian James B. Trefethen reminds us that, “The pattern and timing of their movements assured the regeneration, before they returned, of the depleted grazing lands left in their wakes.” It was a lesson somehow understood by the bison but not, during the years of America’s westward expansion, by man. It is perhaps understandable that western pioneers believed that the vast landscape that lay before them held an inexhaustible bounty of natural riches. Beyond the great herds of bison, the land teemed with an extraordinary variety of wildlife, from elk and mule deer to wolves and grizzly bears, beaver, and wild sheep. Pronghorn antelope alone, it is believed, rivaled the bison in their millions of numbers. It was not just big game: John J. Audubon’s 1813 diary reports a flight of passenger pigeons eclipsing the sun passing over him during a 55-mile trip over a two-day period. How could such huge populations of animals be depleted let alone driven to the brink of extinction?
4242n nFair FairChase ChaseWinter Winter2013 2013
Boone and Crockett Club House exhibit on the island at the 1893 World’s Fair held in Chicago, Illinois. Theodore Roosevelt was responsible for securing the exhibit. He personally hired William Hofer, a well-known guide, to take care of the exhibit.
In the fall of 1883, 24-year-old Theodore Roosevelt, a recent Harvard graduate and already a member of the New York State Legislature, travelled to North Dakota to explore cattle ranching opportunities and to fulfill a boyhood dream of hunting bison, still seen as the iconic big game trophy of western lore and legend. The habitat that supported this wildlife was also a treasure unto itself: Millions of acres of rich sod that could be converted into farms and grasslands that could support huge herds of cattle. In the higher country, there were tracts of majestic trees that seemed to stretch forever and, to top it off, there was also “gold in them thar hills.” All in all, it was a grab bag of natural resources of unprecedented size and, seemingly, one with no bottom. And, in an era of free-wheeling opportunity, it was all there for the taking by those who had the pluck, ingenuity and, often, the greed to do so. Around the mid-point of the 19th century, western settlement was in full swing and the onslaught on the region’s natural resources took on alarming proportions. “Pristine America’s vast virgin forests,” wrote wildlife scientists George B. Ward and Richard E. McCabe, “were cut, prairies were plowed, and wetlands were filled or drained. Minerals were rapaciously siphoned or sifted from streambeds and hillsides. Topsoils were leached of nutrients or allowed to erode at rates far exceeding replacement. Beavers, deer, bison, elk, wolves, bears, passenger pigeons, pronghorns, wild turkeys, bighorn sheep, plumed birds, and other wildlife were killed to extinction or nearly so for subsistence, market, or as imagined obstacles to “progress.” Train tracks and telegraph lines now dissected the landscape, pragmatically reducing the country in time and space. In 1852, there were five miles of rail west of the Mississippi; by 1890, rail lines wended more than 72,000 miles in the West.” In the fall of 1883, 24-year-old Theodore Roosevelt, a recent Harvard graduate and already a member of the New York State Legislature, travelled to North Dakota to explore cattle ranching opportunities and to fulfill a boyhood dream of hunting bison, still seen as the iconic big game trophy of western lore and legend. The badlands of the Dakota territories were believed to be the last stronghold of the “northern herd” of bison yet, by the time Roosevelt arrived, the herd had been decimated. Only scattered and small groups of survivors remained. After a strenuous hunt, young Roosevelt finally shot his bison, and before heading back East, he also purchased a cattle ranch—a symbolic transition, if you will, from one era to the next. By the end of the decade, bison had been virtually eliminated throughout their historic range. In the following years, trips back to his ranch and hunts for antelope, elk, and grizzly endeared Roosevelt to the West but also opened his eyes to the devastating effects of unbridled exploitation of the region. “In the young man
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 43
who came west to hunt buffalo,” wrote Trefethen, “conservation was to find its most vocal, most colorful, and most influential leader at a time when it needed leadership most.” In an era when game was viewed with little regard beyond what price it could bring in the market, Roosevelt, an avid naturalist, instead believed that wildlife held an intrinsic value that, together with America’s wilderness areas, should be regarded as a treasured legacy. As a dedicated and respectful hunter, he deplored the wanton killing of game, whether for commerce or sport. To Roosevelt, hunting was a noble venture, a true test between hunter and the hunted. Hunting was, in his view, a uniquely American experience epitomized by early frontiersmen whose woodcraft, skill with a rifle, and rugged individualism were at the heart of the nation’s pioneering spirit. In the confluence of these two notions was born the sportsman-conservationist. Author, naturalist, and sportsman George Bird Grinnell first travelled out West in 1870, and over subsequent trips, like Roosevelt, became deeply concerned over the unrestrained pillage of the West’s natural resources. As editor from 1880 to 1911 of Forest and Stream magazine (founded in 1873 and today, Field & Stream magazine) Grinnell had a national platform to crusade for the conservation of wildlife, for an end to market hunting and for the establishment of game laws. In 1885, Grinnell wrote a review in Forest and Stream of Theodore Roosevelt’s book Hunting Trips of a Ranchman. While generally favorable, Roosevelt was pricked by some of the criticism in the review and set out to meet Grinnell face to face. Fortunately, that meeting turned cordial and prompted a long and very productive friendship between the two. As wildlife historians Ward and McCabe point out, “With the younger Roosevelt, Grinnell shared his understanding and perspectives on the serious and fragile stature of American wildlife. In Roosevelt, Grinnell found an aggressive and politically mobile ally for his conservation crusade.” Grinnell and Roosevelt would soon become the dynamic-duo of America’s nascent conservation movement. In the late 1800s, there was a small but growing voice in the country decrying the perilous condition of the nation’s wildlife. 44 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
George Bird Grinnell was editor of Forest and Stream magazine from 1880 to 1911 (founded in 1873 and today, Field & Stream magazine) Grinnell had a national platform to crusade for the conservation of wildlife, for an end to market hunting, and for the establishment of game laws.
In an era when game was viewed with little regard beyond what price it could bring in the market, Roosevelt, an avid naturalist, instead believed that wildlife held an intrinsic value that, together with America’s wilderness areas, should be regarded as a treasured legacy. Roosevelt and Grinnell, however, were not content to simply add to the clamor. They were determined to move forward, to seek the enactment and implementation of broad-based policies that would serve to protect big game, and in so doing, preserve America’s hunting heritage. As the first step, Roosevelt, conferring with Grinnell, invited a small but highly influential group of men to dinner at his home in New York City in December of 1887. The common thread among these guests was that they were all avid big game hunters. From that dinner, these men would form the core of what is today the oldest wildlife conservation organization in the country, the Boone and Crockett Club. “Although the Club,” explained Trefethen, “was a small group, limited to one hundred regular members, it numbered in its ranks some of the most powerful men of their time—Senator Henry Cabot Lodge; Francis Parkman; Carl Schurz, former secretary of the Interior and owner and publisher of a chain of leading newspapers; Owen Wister, the novelist; Alfred Bierstadt, one of the nation’s leading painters; and General William Tecumseh Sherman.” For the name of the new Club, the members reached back into America’s past selecting two men who symbolized the essence
Theodore Roosevelt at Yellowstone with John Burroughs, 1903.
of the original frontier character, Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Rugged and self-reliant, both were true woodsmen and skilled hunters as well as men of courage and bold action—traits, not surprisingly, that would later well describe Roosevelt’s presidency. The Club’s first initiative was to enlarge and seek effective protection of Yellowstone National Park. Created as America’s first National Park in 1872, Yellowstone, with minimal protection in place, remained vulnerable to rampant poaching as well as mining and timber exploitation. By the end of 1883, the Northern Pacific Railway had arrived at the Park’s northern entrance, posing a new threat to Yellowstone’s wilderness status. With strong editorial support provided by Grinnell in Forest and Stream and a strong push in Congress by Boone and Crockett Club members, the Yellowstone Park Protection Act was passed in 1894. It not only added more than three thousand square miles to the park, but for the first time, provided park administrators with real “teeth” in enforcing park regulations. The act prohibited the killing or trafficking of wildlife as well as the removal of timber or mineral deposits within the park boundaries. It also took the critical next step by placing a representative of the United States Circuit Court in the park itself, together with U.S. marshals on hand to arrest violators. The Boone and Crockett Club’s crusade to preserve Yellowstone set the stage for America’s early conservation movement. Spearheaded by Grinnell’s editorializing on the perils faced by Yellowstone’s handful of remaining bison, efforts to save dwindling
In the following years, trips back to his ranch and hunts for pronghorn, elk and grizzly endeared Roosevelt to the West but also opened his eyes to the devastating effects of unbridled exploitation of the region.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 45
game populations gained, for the first time, not only widespread public awareness, but also public support. As important as was the advocacy of the Club’s prominent members, so too was the voice of the people. The fight to save Yellowstone also created a long-lasting model of success for the Club, setting a precedent that the protection of wildlife and wilderness areas was an appropriate issue for national law and policy. Wildlife historians point out that the Yellowstone Park Protection Act brought the federal government into the wildlife conservation arena for the first time and set forth the guiding principles which, still to this day, serve to govern the U.S. National Park system. The protection of Yellowstone Park was an impressive start for the Boone and Crockett Club, but members realized that far more land needed to be set aside and protected if remnant populations of big game were to have a chance to recover. In addition to laying the groundwork for additional national parks, key Club members helped craft and strongly pushed for legislation that created forest reserves, the precursor to the national forest system. Working behind the scenes, but with no small measure of political influence, the Boone and Crockett Club was beginning to shape the future of America’s wildlife conservation movement. Less than a year after his election in 1900, President William McKinley was assassinated and Vice President Theodore Roosevelt assumed the nation’s highest office. At the dawn of the new century, one of the founding fathers of the Boone and Crockett Club was now the 26th president of the United States. During his administration (1901-1910) a number of Club members served in his cabinet or in sub-cabinet positions significantly strengthening the hand of America’s first conservation-minded leader. “During his presidential tenure,” notes author and Western
expert Richard C. Rattenbury, “Roosevelt’s activities on behalf of wildlife conservation and habitat preservation were unprecedented. In addition to setting aside nearly 151 million additional acres in the forest reserve system (National Forests after 1907), he established four game reserves in Arizona, Oklahoma, Montana, and Washington; created five new national parks and 18 national monuments; and authorized creation of the National Bison Range in Montana. With Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot (a Club member) and others, TR prompted the establishment and funding of bureaus at both the federal and state level that brought scientific principles to resource management. Largely influenced by Grinnell, Roosevelt truly instituted as a national policy the “wise use of natural resources,” seeking their efficient, renewable administration in perpetuity.” It should be noted that the Boone and Crockett Club actively pursued the establishment of game sanctuaries within forest reserves, the outgrowth of which was the National Wildlife Refuge System. In 1903, President Roosevelt signed an order creating the first officially designated wildlife refuge, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, to protect brown pelicans from plume hunters. As much as this broad effort to secure and protect habitat was critical to the future of America’s beleaguered wildlife, so too was the Boone and Crockett Club’s stance on hunting. As Roosevelt emphasized, “ … there is no objection to hunting … the encouragement of a proper hunting spirit, a proper love of the sport, instead of being incompatible with a love of nature and wild things, offers the best guaranty for the preservation of wild things.” In part, the preservation of game required a new, responsible ethos to hunting which was clearly espoused in the Club’s stance on fair chase. Thanks to Grinnell’s outreach in the sporting press, the concept of sportsmanship began to take hold. In the late 1800s Grinnell observed that the Club’s efforts to encourage ethical hunting practices were gaining traction. “Those who used to boast of their slaughter,” observed Grinnell, “are now ashamed of it, and it is In 1903, Major C.E. Radclyffe from Hyde Wareham Dorset, United Kingdom, took this moose hunting near Birch Creek on the Kenai peninsula, Alaska.
“During his presidential tenure,” notes author and Western expert Richard C. Rattenbury, “Roosevelt’s activities on behalf of wildlife conservation and habitat preservation were unprecedented.” 46 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
becoming a recognized fact that a man who wastefully destroys big game, whether for the market or only for heads, has nothing of the true sportsman about him.” As much as unregulated hunting for subsistence and sport contributed to the decline of game species, it paled by comparison to the slaughter brought about by market hunters. In 1894 Grinnell wrote in Forest and Stream, “The game supply which makes possible the general indulgence in field sports is of incalculable advantage to individuals and the nation; but a game supply which makes possible the traffic in game as a luxury has no such importance. If this is granted, public policy demands the traffic in game be abolished … We suggest this declaration, the sale of game should be forbidden at all seasons.” In 1897, good friend of Grinnell and also a Boone and Crockett Club member, Congressman John F. Lacey championed a bill in Congress for a federal law to ban the sale of wildlife products. Defeated that year, Lacey re-introduced the bill in 1900, and with the strong support of birding organizations and emerging sportsmen’s
At Gifford Pinchot’s urging, in 1909 President Roosevelt invited representatives from Canada and Mexico to the North American Conservation Conference to “consider mutual interests involved in the conservation of natural resources.”
As Roosevelt emphasized, “ … there is no objection to hunting … the encouragement of a proper hunting spirit, a proper love of the sport, instead of being incompatible with a love of nature and wild things, offers the best guarantee [sic] for the preservation of wild things.”
PROFESSIONAL PACKAGE
MSRP $ 4,495
1ShotGear, 4720 S Santa Fe Circle, Unit 5 Englewood CO, 80110 www.1ShotGear.com 303-284-3828 Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 47
groups, the bill passed. The legislation prohibited The Boone and Crockett the interstate shipment of illegally killed wildlife. Club began measuring Wildlife biologists and managers consider the Lacey trophies in 1906 as a means Act of 1900 to be the legal cornerstone of fish and of cataloging big game wildlife conservation in the United States. species once thought New game laws coupled with protected headed for extinction. sanctuaries, especially for big game, helped some Thanks in great measure to species begin to recover; at times, however, with the Club’s efforts, most all unintended consequences. Created by President North American big game Roosevelt in 1906, the Grand Canyon National now exist in healthy and Game Preserve of the Kaibab Plateau provided abundant numbers. protection for a population of a few thousand mule deer. By the early 1920s the deer population had skyrocketed; deer were literally eating themselves out of house and home. The destruction of the reserve’s vegetation led to a massive die-off of the plateau’s mule deer. The Boone and Crockett Club began keeping trophy records This tragedy, however, prompted a new understanding of how wildlife in 1906 as a means of cataloging big game species once thought needed to be managed. headed for extinction. Thanks in great measure to the Club’s efforts, The Kaibab situation was closely followed by the Boone and most all North American big game now exist in healthy and abundant Crockett Club and especially by one of its members, Aldo Leopold, numbers. Today, the Boone and Crockett trophy records program now widely recognized as the “father” of modern wildlife management. provides a means for the Club to communicate the principles of fair A forester with a Master of Forestry degree from Yale, the Kaibab chase to American hunters and provides wildlife biologists with an disaster helped him frame his ideas about the broad spectrum of invaluable database to measure animal population trends, genetics, interrelationships in the environment, notably the concept of the and nutrition as well as age and habitat characteristics. The Club carrying capacity of any habitat in respect to the species that lived began hosting public exhibitions in 1947 so that the public could there. The need for ecological balance and the means to achieve see the trophies that Boone and Crockett honors as symbols of the that equilibrium evolved into the underlying thesis of modern wildlife nation’s uniquely successful conservation system. conservation. As the Boone and Crockett Club celebrates its 125th In keeping with the Boone and Crockett Club’s focus on anniversary, George Bird Grinnell’s words in his 1910 history of the education and outreach, the Club published much of the literature Club still ring true today: on the emerging science of wildlife management, culminating in the President’s Conference on Outdoor Recreation in 1924, the first “It has not been the Club’s practice to announce its purposes, broad-based effort to create a coordinated resource management nor to glory in what it has accomplished, but rather to move steadfastly policy at all government levels. The success of this and ensuing conferences is considered by many as one of the signature contributions forward, striving constantly to do whatever fell within its province which of the Boone and Crockett Club to the future of conservation. would tend to promote the country’s welfare. It would have been natural With many of the building blocks of modern wildlife management in place, and with new conservation groups being and easy for the Club to have confined its activities to meetings at intervals formed, the Boone and Crockett Club increasingly took on a role as to dine and discuss abuses and dangers, and to pass stirring resolutions a catalyst for ideas and issues as well as a coalition organization of about them. Instead of this, it has had a small body of intelligent men, America’s conservation movement. The Club played a critical role in the formation, for example, of the National Wildlife Federation, scattered all over the country, working individually and constantly in the Wildlife Management Institute and the Cooperative Wildlife behalf of things once laughed at or unknown, but now as familiar to the Research Unit Program, a key training source for fish and wildlife public mind as household words. The results accomplished by the Boone management professionals. Through the 1929 Migratory Bird Act and the 1934 Duck Stamp Act, the Club established the legislative and Crockett Club bear testimony to the alertness and energy of its model, and was highly influential in the passage of the 1937 Pittman- members, and to the success of the methods which they have pursued.” Robertson Act which called for an excise tax on sporting arms and By the time Theodore Roosevelt travelled to the Dakota ammunition. Over the past 75 years, PR funds have been the financial Territories in the early 1880s, the waves of tall prairie grass that once backbone of wildlife conservation throughout the 50 states. Conservation leadership continues as a mainstay of the Boone rolled to an ever-distant horizon now seemed destined to soon crash and Crockett Club. With a view toward wildlife and land-use research, on a rocky shore. While “manifest destiny” may have provided a high-minded the Club purchased a 6,000-acre ranch, now named the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch, in northern Montana at the edge of the rationale for Western expansion, the unrestrained exploitation of Bob Marshall Wilderness. The ranch serves as a hands-on research the region that accelerated in the latter half of the 19th century was facility for scientific analyses of how domestic livestock and wildlife not our finest hour. Nonetheless, the story of how the “Wild West” interrelate when competing for common habitat; an issue that was won remains a popular and colorful chapter Western livestock growers have been struggling with for over a in our nation’s history. More compelling and, century. Today, under the umbrella of the Boone and Crockett certainly more uplifting, is the story of how the Wildlife Conservation Program, the Club is active in a wide range “Wild West” was saved. For that story, and much of research and education efforts including a grants program for more in later years, we must give strong due to our friends at the Boone and Crockett Club. n graduate students in the wildlife sciences. 48 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
The Wilderness Warrior Society is the Club’s premier major gifts society. It was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Boone and Crockett Club. With your gift of $125,000 or more, you will be honored by being named a founding member of the Wilderness Warrior Society. You will be presented with your own numbered limited edition bronze of Theodore Roosevelt on horseback, a custom Hickey Freeman Blazer, as well as other custom gifts to recognize and honor you for your contribution. Funds raised from Wilderness Warrior contributions are placed in the Boone and Crockett Club Foundation endowment where the principal remains intact, and the annual interest income generated provides permanent funding for vital conservation programs. We now have twenty members of the Society, which at $125,000 each translates to $2.5 million for the endowment. It has been a huge success by any measure but we will continue to grow the Society with a goal of 25 members or more. Please join us in this grand effort on such a significant occasion. Contact the Boone and Crockett Club today to find out how you can become a founding member of the Wilderness Warrior Society.
ABOVE: Boone and Crockett President, William A. Demmer, and Members Gary W. Dietrich and Morrison Stevens, Sr.
MEMBERS OF THE WILDERNESS WARRIOR SOCIETY Trevor L. Ahlberg James F. Arnold Rene R. Barrientos Marshall J. Collins Jr. William A. Demmer Gary W. Dietrich John P. Evans Steve J. Hageman B.B. Hollingsworth Jr. Ned S. Holmes Tom L. Lewis Jack S. Parker* Remo R. Pizzagalli Thomas D. Price Edward B. Rasmuson Morrison Stevens Sr. Ben B. Wallace C. Martin Wood III Paul M. Zelisko R. Terrell McCombs * Deceased
Contact Ben Hollingsworth at 713/840-1508 for more details. Boone and Crockett Club | www.boone-crockett.org
250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801 | 406/542-1888
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 49
Lea
Š DONALD M. JONES
Boone and Crockett
50 nn Fair 50 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
eadership They are working with some of the most challenging issues facing wildlife, including climate change and adaptation, endangered species recovery, urbanization, human dimension and population growth, population dynamics, habitat loss, effective policy and administration, challenges to the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, wildlife biology, management and conservation, funding, invasive species, and wildlife health.
pg 54. B&C PROFESSORS’ CORNER by Paul R. Krausman
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 51
KNOWLEDGE BASE The European Connection
©WWW.STOCKPHOTO.COM/KIRSANOVV
The paintings of Lascaux Cave in southwestern France remind us that big game hunting in is far older Winifred B. Kessler Europe than history itself. We PROFESSIONAL MEMBER may never know the Boone and Crockett Club motivations of the paleolithic artists who created these remarkable images of wild horses, stags, cattle, bison, and other animals. Some anthropologists interpret the drawings as accounts of past hunts, whereas others suggest they may have been part of rituals to improve future hunting success. European hunting changed during the high middle ages (11th, 12th, and 13th centuries) from a food-gathering activity for all to a pastime reserved for aristocrats. The earliest game laws made wildlife the property of nobility and outlawed poaching by the common people. In much of Europe today, hunting is managed in a more traditional and exclusive fashion compared to North America, where the democracy of hunting is foundational to our system of game management. Markets for game, eliminated in North America a century ago, remain an important aspect of wildlife management in Europe.
52 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
While differing in some respects, Europe and North America share the principle that wildlife management policies and practices should be informed by science. As in North America, Europe’s wildlife professionals conduct research on wildlife populations and habitats and work hard to apply that knowledge in management. They associate through the International Union of Game Biologists (IUGB), a nonprofit established in Germany in 1954. The IUGB’s aims are to “promote the advancement of knowledge in game biology and skill in the field of wild animals, improving the management of wild animal populations and
While differing in some respects, Europe and North America share the principle that wildlife management policies and practices should be informed by science. wildlife habitat conservation, and contributing to the comradeship amongst its members.” Like The Wildlife Society based in North America, the IUGB provides a network for wildlife professionals and practitioners mainly in Europe, but other regions as well, to share knowledge that advances wildlife management and habitat conservation and to foster a sense of community within the profession. In August I was privileged to be the opening plenary speaker at the 31st Congress of the IUGB held in Brussels, Belgium. My presentation highlighted key contemporary issues in North America, including wolf and ungulate management, feral and invasive species, and emerging wildlife diseases. Boone and Crockett Professor Paul Krausman spoke on “Effects of Harvest, Culture, and Climate on Size of Horn-like Structures in Trophy Ungulates,” a study that used the B&C Records of North American Big Game as its primary data source. The Congress theme was “Diversity in Wildlife Management: Objectives and Tools.” It brought together more than 300 participants from 34 countries and four continents. Information was shared in six keynote speeches, 84 oral papers, and 118
poster presentations that featured research findings, management practices, and techniques from around the world. In Europe and other parts of the world, wildlife management is performed by a wide variety of professionals and practitioners. This was reflected in the diversity of people who attended, including biologists, foresters, veterinarians, game managers, sociologists, rural economists, hunters, and others. The IUGB Congress is held every two years; this was the fourth I attended since 1985, and each one has expanded and enriched my perspectives on the practice and profession of wildlife management. The IUGB is coming to North America for its next Congress, scheduled to occur in Puebla, Mexico in 2015. The knowledge base for the conservation community in Europe and beyond has been enhanced by a new monograph Conservation and Hunting in North America. It was published as the June 2013 issue of The International Journal of Environmental Studies (Vol. 70, No. 3), a journal based in the United Kingdom. This collection of scholarly papers on the relationships between conservation and hunting offers a comprehensive look at the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Boone and Crockett members are prominent among the authors. They include Paul Krausman, Vernon Bleich, James Heffelfinger, Valerius Geist, and James Posewitz; Shane Mahoney is both an author and the guest editor for the volume. It’s great to see this wealth of information about our highly successful conservation system being extended to readers in the environmental studies disciplines. And it’s coming from Britain, where negative attitudes about hunting have long obscured the vital relationships between hunting and wildlife conservation. n
The Monograph on Hunting and Conservation in North America is available at www.tandfonline.com/ toc/genv20/70/3. Alternatively, you may email Shane Mahoney shanemahoney@gov.nl.ca, Jackie Weir jackieweir@gov.nl.ca, or manuscript authors for copies of the individual manuscripts.
“Yes” Is the Best Answer. ARE YOU INTERESTED IN CHARITABLE GIVING THAT: n
INCREASES YOUR INCOME?
n
SAVES INCOME TAX?
n
SAVES CAPITAL GAINS TAX?
n
SAVES FEDERAL ESTATE TAX?
n
BYPASSES PROBATE?
If you answered “Yes” to some or all of these questions, you will be interested in a charitable gift annuity that provides financial support for The Boone and Crockett Club and guaranteed income for you and another person. Here are sample payout rates for a one-life CGA at specific ages: 64........4.6%
76.........6.0%
68........4.9%
80.........6.8%
72........5.4%
84.........7.6%
“The Charitable Gift Annuity was a perfect way for my wife and myself to support the Boone and Crockett Club’s mission. The Club’s advisor in these matters, Mr. Winton Smith, was most helpful. He outlined the tax benefits and competitive investment return we would gain while providing a significant gift for the Club’s many good works.” — Hudson and Ruth De Cray
Emeritus Member Since 2008 Regular Member Since 1994
For more information, please contact: Winton C. Smith, J.D. 1-800-727-1040 wsmith@wintonsmith.com Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 53
B&C PROFESSORS’ CORNER JUMPSTARTING TOMORROWS LEADERS Boone and Crockett Professors have used this column many times to explain the benefits to, and activities of the fellows Paul R. Krausman that we support with PROFESSIONAL MEMBER our research budgets. Boone and Crockett Club Most of the Boone and Professor of Wildlife Crockett Fellows (at Conservation University both the master’s and of Montana doctorate levels) have left their respective universities with a clear understanding of what a wildlife professional is and are contributing to the conservation and management of wildlife in leadership roles throughout North America.
There is no single arena that they migrate to but all fellows progress toward the goal of scientific management and conservation by working with state game and fish agencies, federal conservation agencies, non-government organizations, consulting organizations, universities, and other management and conservation affiliations. And they are working with some of the most challenging issues facing wildlife, including climate change and adaptation, endangered species recovery, urbanization, human dimension and population growth, population dynamics, habitat loss, effective policy and administration, challenges to the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, wildlife biology, management and conservation, funding, invasive species, and wildlife health. Each of these fellows exerts important influences on how The Boone and Crockett wildlife is managed in this country. Program at the University Even those that progress from of Montana is the first of master’s to doctorate programs are the Boone and Crockett actively involved in research other Professorships established. than their own for the dissertation Paul R. Krausman is the to further advance the science. third professor to hold For example, I am working the position and has had with two former fellows and the the honor to serve as such since 2007. Boone and Crockett research Professor Krausman and his graduate assistant at Montana, plus students have been engaged in wildlife researchers in Canada, Arizona, and studies that address questions related to Minnesota to discover ways to more the influences of humans on wildlife and efficiently determine diets of their habitats. Recent studies include the carnivores. This was part of association of black bears with humans Johnathan Derbridge’s master’s in Missoula, Montana; winter habitat use thesis in which he did an excellent of mule deer; wolf diets; the use of citizen job of determining the diet of wolves science as a mechanism to estimate the population of mountain goats; bison conservation in central Montana; and use of altering habitats by caribou. In addition Krausman, is working on a survey of deer ranges in the U.S. and the influences of canals on desert mule deer. His studies occur from Newfoundland to southern California. Krausman has teamed with others to produce his latest textbook, Wildlife Management and Conservation: Contemporary Principles and Practices.
Learn more about the University of Montana and our other B&C University Programs
54 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
B&C
O
N LI NE
in northwest Montana using stable isotope analysis, a relatively new technique that can determine diet from hair samples. In the short term, diets can be determined from blood, and bone can reveal the diets throughout the life of an animal. Hair can reveal diets from the time it grows until it is shed. The technique is not invasive and allows researchers and managers to determine diets simply by collecting and analyzing hair samples collected from check stations, animals killed by hunters and trappers, and from the field. Like most good research, more questions were raised than answered from the initial research. In many cases, once a project is completed and published, that is the end of it. One of the lingering questions raised by Jonathan was the accuracy of the new technique. After all, we did not have known diets with which to compare our work, and the only contrast was diets determined from scat analysis as a means of comparison. The best way to determine if the new technique of using stable isotopes for diet determination was accurate was to have known diets from which to make comparisons. By this time, all the wildlifers that had worked on the project had gone to other universities, but we were still interested in pursuing the question. Thus, we found a facility in Minnesota that had packs of gray wolves and developed a project to answer our question by feeding them known diets of whitetail deer, Canada geese, and beavers and applying stable isotope analysis to hair analysis. We are still a ways from concluding the study but
Read Johnathan Derbridge’s full article on stable isotope analysis in the Summer 2012 issue of Fair Chase.
we look forward to the results and how they can be applied to better understand the diets of carnivores. The point I want to make is that all the researchers, especially the fellows, had moved on to other projects, yet dedicated the time to conduct another independent study by following up on new questions. This is akin to taking on a new job where you are working for 60-plus hours a week and also continuing with another窶馬ot for money (most fellows are only paid for 20 hours a week), not for fame, but just to further the science of wildlife management and to develop professionally. This dedication is only one example of the outstanding quality of Boone and Crockett Fellows. Since I have been in this position at the University of Montana, Boone and Crockett Professors, Professional Members, and Fellows have collaborated among programs on
They are working with some of the most challenging issues facing wildlife, including climate change and adaptation, endangered species recovery, urbanization, human dimension and population growth, population dynamics, habitat loss, effective policy and administration, challenges to the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, wildlife biology, management and conservation, funding, invasive species, and wildlife health.
biological studies, books, including chapters on climate change, management practices, the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation, and of course the professional interactions at local, national, and international wildlife meetings. Wildlife conservation and management in North America is facing critical challenges, many of which are mentioned above. To meet these and the many other challenges facing wildlife will take the best and brightest wildlifers that are dedicated and determined to meet them. I am pleased that the Boone and Crockett Fellows have stepped up and will continue to do so, ensuring that B&C Fellows contribute to the future of wildlife in North America and around the world. n
The revolution in rangefinding is here.
NEW!
The Geovid HD-B. It's more than just the next generation of the pioneering Leica Geovid laser rangefinding binocular. The revolutionary Geovid HD-B establishes an entirely new benchmark for on-board ballistics information, including the ability to program and save customized ballistics data for individual firearm and ammo combinations. Plus the Geovid HD-B delivers a longer rangefinding capability and the optical performance that made Geovid legendary. ___ 12 pre-programmed ballistics curves ___ microSD card slot for personalized ballistics data ___ accurate rangefinding to 2,000 yards ___ all-new Perger Porro optics system Leica Camera, Inc. / 1 Pearl Court, Unit A
Discover more at www.leica-sportoptics.com
Allendale, NJ 07401
Join the conversation on Facebook at /LeicaHunting
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 55
MEMBER ADVENTURES THE ACORN SERIES - COLONEL W.D. PICKETT, BEAR HUNTER The first book in the Acorn Series was published by the Boone and Crockett Club in 1893. It featured a Theodore J. Holsten collection of unique hunting adventures by EMERITUS MEMBER Boone and Crockett Club members of the Club. One of these, “Nights with the Grizzlies,” was written by Colonel W.D. Pickett, a Confederate war hero. Pickett, who owned a ranch in Wyoming, was a dedicated bear hunter. His favorite bear rifle was a Sharps single shot that he used to dispatch many grizzlies. Here is an excerpt from what he wrote: “About the middle of July 1885, word reached me that there was a considerable sign of bear rooting on some high mountain plateaus not many day’s [sic] travel by pack train from my ranch. Taking a pack outfit, including my fur-lined sleeping bag, a good mountain man, and a lad of fifteen to take care of camp and the horses, and enough grub for a few days, we reached the locality after a hard climb, about noon on the 18th of July. We made camp at about 8,500 feet elevation on the head of one of the forks of Four Bear Creek, having to pack wood up from below for making coffee. We struck out after lunch up the gulch, and after going a few miles discovered a grizzly rooting among the rocks well up to its head, near the summit of the range, which is here between 10,000 and 11,000 feet elevation. A reconnaissance indicated that the only chance to approach him to windward was by crossing the mountain to the right into the valley of another fork of Four Bear Creek. Accordingly, we climbed over the mountain divide and were making along the opposite slope, when just in our front about a mile off, near the head of the gulch on the right, was discovered another grizzly rooting.
The Member Adventures series will continue to feature highlight and excerpts from Boone and Crockett publications written by our adventurous members.
56 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
It was agreed that I was to have the shot, and it became necessary to leave my horse and dogs back with the men. I took it afoot. A little study of the ground showed that in order to approach him successfully, it was necessary to descend to the bottom of the gorge on the right, and to ascend along its bed. This I proceeded to do. Just before reaching the bed of the gorge I was exposed to view, and was walking fast or running to get the advantage of friendly cover. When within about fifty yards of the bottom, and with my attention directed to the bear about half a mile away, a large grizzly forced himself on my attention by rising from his bed in the bottom of the gulch. Walking slowly away, he commenced ascending diagonally the opposite and steep side of the gorge. The old rascal during the heat of the day had dug a resting place in the cool bed of the branch, was taking his siesta, and evidently resented being disturbed. From the sullen way in which he made off, occasionally looking back, I felt he was going to be ugly. Quicker than it takes to write it, I had two cartridges in my right hand, which, with the one in the rifle, were thought sufficient, for at that time the size of the beast was not realized. The cartridge in the rifle was a 110-270-grain express, and those in the hand 110-270-grain and 110-340-grain respectively, all express balls. While [I was] making these preparations, the bear, going diagonally up the side of the gulch, had disappeared behind a huge conglomerate boulder that overhung the stream. Seeing he must soon emerge, I dropped on my right knee and stood ready to fire at the first favorable opportunity. In a moment he emerged from behind the boulder, walked up a short distance, stopped and looked back, exposing his left side to rather more than a quartering shot. Aim was quickly taken for his heart. A report followed, and the little express ball did its work well. It broke two ribs, three or four large fragments entered the heart, and the balance of the splinters scattered through the lungs. Making but little noise when hit—an ugly sigh—he, as this species of bear almost always does under the circumstances, tucked his head between his hind legs, and rolled down into the gulch, using his forelegs for guides. He came up with a bounce, was on his feet in a moment and making a rush straight for me. I had loaded in a jiffy with the other 110-270grain cartridge, but waited a moment until he commenced ascending my side of the gulch, hoping with a good shot to roll him back. Crossing rapidly the bed of the gulch, he was in a moment ascending toward me, and when within about thirty yards (he was originally about seventy yards at the first fire) I fired at his front, hitting at the point of the right shoulder, shattering the socket-joint and that bone half-way to the elbow. He did not roll back, but was demoralized and sickened, and had not the strength to come further, but changing his direction to the left about forty-five degrees, passed within twenty yards of my right front. I was loaded and ready for another shot as he passed. He appeared so near done for, however, that I hesitated to fire, wishing to have some practice on him for my two young dogs, Bob and Snip, which had never seen a live bear. He, however, seemed, after passing, to mend his licks so fast that I feared he would give trouble in dispatching him, so I ran rapidly after him; he in meantime having partially disappeared under the bank, and when within fifteen or twenty yards he turned at bay, facing me. Before he could charge, if such was his aim, the 110-340-grain cartridge was delivered into the side of the neck within the collar-bone, making a fearful wound, and rolling him down into the gulch, where he soon died. It was only after my man had come up and the bear had been rolled over that his dimensions and the danger I had escaped by the little ball doing such execution at the socket joint were realized. Had it struck an inch and a
half to the left, he would have been on me in a few more jumps; and though another shot would have been given, I think, unless it had been a paralyzing shot in the brain or spinal column, he would have so torn and lacerated me as to make death preferable. I have been in half a dozen scrapes of more or less danger with these bears, but have never lost my presence of mind until they were dead and the danger passed through realized. I have always determined never to run, but to face them and fire away believing that the least sign of fear gives any animal additional courage.” n
This illustration by A.B. Frost was from Scribner’s Magazine, titled Prospecting for Grub. Colonel W. D. Pickett’s story, Nights with Grizzlies can be found in the book American Big-Game Hunting.
B&C
ON
LI N
E
Check out the other e-books in our Acorn Series
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 57
Recipes from the Club’s Upcoming Cookbook Wild Gourmet Due out Fall 2014!
Wild Game, Fish, and Fowl Recipes for Everyday Chefs – Prepare Savory Dishes with the Game You Bring Back from the Hunt!
Pronghorn on an Iron Cross with Chile-Fennel Tzatziki From Chef Michael Chiarello Serves 20 to 30
When I consider all the people, throughout centuries, who have used this method to cook a pronghorn, I feel like one small dot in a very long time line. This is a 30-log kind of a fire. To be safe have 3 dozen logs, each about 6 inches in diameter and each completely dry, stacked, and ready before you begin. BASTING LIQUID 1 cup loosely packed sage leaves ½ cup fresh rosemary sprigs ½ cup fresh thyme sprigs 4 cups fresh flat-leaf parsley 2 cups fresh mint 1-1/2 cups fresh oregano 8 garlic cloves 1 tablespoon kosher salt 1 tablespoon butcher’s salt 2 cups olive oil 2 cups dry white wine 6 bay leaves, fresh or dried Chile-Fennel Tzatziki (opposite page)
The basting liquid makes enough for one pronghorn up to 45 pounds. I love the flavor butcher’s salt adds to the basting liquid. Butcher’s salt is a blend of salt and spices from France made especially for meat. In a perfect world, you’d baste the pronghorn while it cooks using a branch of rosemary as your brush. Silicone basting brushes—as big as you can get—do the job just fine too. 58 ■ Fair Chase Winter 2013
FOR THE BASTING LIQUID
In a food processor, or in a blender in batches, combine the sage, rosemary, thyme, parsley, mint, oregano, garlic, kosher salt, and butcher’s salt or pepper. Process to a coarse purée. With the machine running, add the oil and wine, and purée until smooth. Transfer the liquid to a container with a lid, add the bay leaves, and refrigerate until the pronghorn goes on the fire. SETTING UP FOR THE PRONGHORN
When you’re ready to start cooking, clean the pronghorn, but don’t tie it to the cross until you’ve started the fire. When the fire is ready for the big logs, add them and then fasten the pronghorn onto the cross while the fire burns down a little. The fire you need to build won’t be the size of a bon fire but just big enough to provide steady, even heat for the 4 hours that the pronghorn will cook. Have one or two friends hold the pronghorn up against the vertical bar, with the pronghorn shoulders toward the ground. While you tie each of the four legs to a crossbar. The back of the pronghorn should be against the cross; the ribs should be facing out toward the fire. Use a heavy-gauge wire (at least 16-gauge, found in my hardware store) to securely tie each leg to a crossbar and then use the wire to fasten the neck to the center, vertical bar. When the fire has died down slightly so it’s not raging flames. Maneuver the iron
cross into place so it’s close to the fire but not right on top of it. Use your hands to test that the pronghorn is close enough to the heat to cook. You’ll want to allow at least 3 to 4 hours for a pronghorn that weighs roughly 45 pounds. Check the fire periodically. If it begins to cool, add logs but always add new wood to the edge of the fire farthest from the iron cross; you don’t want flaming logs under the pronghorn. When the new wood glows red and is no longer emitting lots of smoke and flame, then rake it forward closer to the pronghorn. Don’t rely on time alone to determine when the meat is done. For medium-rare pronghorn, it’s done when the meat registers 135°F on a meat or probe thermometer. Take the pronghorn off the fire and let rest for 15 minutes before you begin to carve. If you have an iron cross with rings, slide each of the animal’s legs through the rings. Secure each leg by twining 16-gauge stainless steel picture wire around the leg and the crossbar. Don’t use a wire that’s too lightweight hold the animal and don’t use wire with any kind of coating on it. Have a large heat-proof surface ready for the pronghorn. A butcher block table is ideal. Ask a friend or two to help plate the pronghorn as you carve. HOW TO CARVE
First untie the wire from the pronghorn and discard it. Cut away the hind legs at the
joints; the meat should be tender enough so this is easy. Next, carve at the shoulder, working down toward the front legs. Cut away the front legs, and then carve the pronghorn one section at a time, working from the ribs toward the backbone.
CHILE-FENNEL TZATZIKI Makes 3 cups
The rich hot pronghorn and the cool, creamy tzatziki sauce are made for each other. I gave this an Italian twist by adding fennel, roasted lemon juice, and Calabrian chiles. Use a traditional thick Greek-style yogurt, and use the green fronds at the top of your fennel to give this extra flavor and color. For more flavor grate the cucumber, catching all the juices for the tzatziki. I like to make this at least an hour ahead of time so it can chill before serving. 1 1 2 1 1
juicy lemon, halved small bulb fennel with green fronds cups Greek-style yogurt teaspoon minced garlic large whole peeled cucumber or 2 small whole peeled cucumbers 1 teaspoon Calabrian chile paste, or ¼ teaspoon red pepper flakes 1/4 teaspoon coarse sea salt, preferably gray salt 1/8 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
B&C Field Notes Additional sauce recipes and information about using an iron cross will be available in the Club’s upcoming book, Wild Gourmet, due out in the fall of 2014.
Grill the lemons at least 1 hour before serving or the day before if you like. On a hot grill or in a cast-iron pan over a fire or on the stove, place the lemon halves cut-side down. Cook until the lemon shows some char, 4 to 5 minutes. When the lemons have cooled, juice them and then strain the juice to get rid of some of the char. Measure about 1 tablespoon of the roasted lemon juice and reserve the remaining juice. Trim the fennel. Cut the white part into 1/4-inch dice (about 1 cup); coarsely chop the green fronds (about 1 tablespoon). In a medium bowl, mix the 1 tablespoon strained lemon juice with the diced fennel, yogurt, and garlic. Grate the peeled cucumber into a measuring cup, catching all the juice that you can. Add the grated cuke and its juice to the bowl when you have about 1 cup. (A little less or extra is fine.) Stir in the chopped fennel fronds, chile paste, salt and pepper. Taste and then add another few teaspoons of roasted lemon juice or more salt and pepper, B&C Field Notes if you like. Cover with plastic wrap, refrigerate, and chill B&C staffer, Justin Spring, fieldfor at least an hour or overnight. Stir just before serving. tested this recipe earlier this
fall with delicious results (photo below). Check out the time-lapse video of the process here: http://bit.ly/1aul4EJ Photos courtesy Joel Issacs
Meet the Chef Michael Chiarello Chef and Owner Bottega
Michael Chiarello is an award-winning chef and owner of critically acclaimed Bottega restaurant in the Napa Valley. He made his mark by combining his Southern Italian roots with the distinctive hallmarks of Napa Valley living. From his earliest childhood experiences—created around his mother’s California kitchen with his extended Italian family of butchers, cheesemakers, and ranchers—Michael Chiarello dreamed of becoming a chef one day. Decades later, he has realized his dream, and much more. Upon graduating from the Culinary Institute of America (CIA), Michael began to shape his career into what he would become: an acclaimed chef, culinary and lifestyle trends pioneer, noted author, and Emmy-winning television host on Food Network and Cooking Channel. Throughout his achievements, he incorporates his passion for seasonal, sustainable living – and the artisan purveyors who make it possible – into his endeavors. His unique perspective on good food and healthy living, spiced with a dose of old-world charm, inspires friends and family to create meaningful memories around their table. Michael was named Chef of the Year by Food & Wine Magazine in 1985, received the CIA’s Chef of the Year Award in 1995, and was named CIA’s 2011 Alumni of the Year. He was also a fi nalist on Top Chef Masters, and has appeared as a judge on Top Chef and Top Chef Masters. A popular celebrity guest chef, Michael is a regular contributor to NBC’s The Today Show, CBS’s The Early Show, Martha Stewart Living Radio, Regis & Kelly, and the San Francisco Chronicle’s “Inside Scoop Voices” Column. Fair FairChase ChaseWinter Winter2013 2013■ ■59 3
TROPHY TALK Trophy Tampering I would like to remind everyone that trophies that have been tampered with to gain an advantage are not eligible for entry in Jack Reneau B&C’s records DIRECTOR program. For example, Big Game Records the intentional removal of an abnormal point from any antlered animal’s rack to enhance the score, especially a typical deer or elk, would disqualify it from entry in B&C. The inclusion of a bonding substance at the horn bases of a pronghorn to inflate the basal circumference measurements would also disqualify a trophy. It has come to our attention that a new product, called the RACK JACK, is now being sold that can be used to tamper with spread measurements. The advertising for this product claims that it “prevents and eliminates rack shrinkage” and “widens spread up to 8 inches” Whether someone uses this product or a piece of lumber or a branch to increase or maintain a spread measurement, their trophy would be disqualified from entry in B&C.
Trophy Watch
It’s that time of year again when we start receiving numerous emails at B&C headquarters with field photographs being taken of incredible trophies. The photos are sometimes accompanied with claims that it’s a new World’s Record. Sometimes nothing is known about these trophies except where it came from or perhaps the name of the hunter. Sometimes, a score is mentioned even though it doesn’t say if it was arrived at by a trained B&C Official Measurer. I personally forward these emails on to a group of friends who enjoy hearing about these animals. Then, if we feel the photos are worthy enough, they are posted on Trophy Watch on B&C’s website, where they provide countless hours of viewing. If you have never visited it before, check it out. If there is little or no information about the trophy in the posting, we update it as additional information is received from viewers. If there are errors or misstatements in the initial email accompanying a potential Trophy Watch email that is contrary to B&C rules and policies, they are corrected.
Moose Scoring Problems
With that introduction, I’ll segue into the topic I would especially like to talk about in this column—moose scoring problems. On the surface, it would appear that moose are almost as easy to score as bear and cat skulls. Only seven measurements are taken, which include the greatest spread, number of normal points (counted only) on each antler, widths and lengths of palms, and circumference measurements of the main beams. I have always contended, however, that moose are among the most difficult trophies to score. Personally, I would much rather score a caribou, which is much more complicated, than a moose. This opinion was reinforced with the outcome of the 28th Awards Program Judges Panel in Reno earlier this year. The entire scoring system is designed to be objective with no room for personal, subjective scoring interpretations. However, the problem with moose is that there actually is room for personal subjectivity between scorers when making scoring interpretations. This is evidenced by the simple fact that a
Recent Trophy Watch This is a field photo of a huge AlaskaYukon moose taken on September, 25, 2013, by Heinz Naef at the confluence of the Yukon and Stewart rivers in Yukon Territory. According to the information that accompanied the photo, the greatest spread is about 75 inches and the green score is between 262 and 272 points, depending on where the palm-length measurements were taken. If this score holds up, it could be a new World’s Record AlaskaYukon moose. The current World’s Record is a bull scoring 261-5/8 points taken at Fortymile River, Alaska, in 1994 by John A. Crouse.
60 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
Find Trophy Watch Online
www.boone-crockett.org
Post your trophy to Instagram using #TrophyWatch Follow us @ BooneandCrockettClub
Keep up to date with new trophies
Send us your photos for consideration for Trophy Watch TW@boone-crockett.org
BOOK REVIEW number of moose are scored incorrectly, and corrections result in significant adjustments in score, which are unfortunately almost always downwards. I don’t want to review the entire moose scoring procedure, but I do want to discuss two areas of concern when scoring moose. The first possibility for making a scoring error is when counting the number of points on each antler. In order for a projection to be counted a point, it must be at least one inch long, with the length exceeding width at one inch or more of length (Figure A). Thus, it doesn’t suffice for a measurer to just count all the projections and bumps just by eyeballing them. A measurer needs to get down on his/ her hands and knees, if necessary, to check questionable projections against Figure A. It’s obvious from the trophies entered in B&C, this isn’t always done. By the way, at this point you may have asked yourself, Why don’t we measure the lengths of all points on moose like the deer and elk categories? The reason may not be obvious at first glance. Basically, it’s because B&C’s moose scoring system rewards older moose that have wide and long palms with lots of short points over a younger bull that has longer points but shorter and narrower palms. The second place to make a significant error is when taking the length of palm measurement. To start with, the length of palm measurement, including the brow, is taken in contact with the undersurface of the palm, parallel to the palm’s inner edge, from dips between bumps or points at the top edge of the palm to a dip between qualifying points (Figure A), if present on the brow palm. Before taking the palm length measurements, the scorer should first eyeball the inner edge of the palm and lay out a strip of masking tape parallel to the inner edge of the palm (Figure B). Then, the scorer must check all options and pick the greatest length that is parallel or closest to parallel to the inner edge of the palm (masking tape). Frequently, the correct length of palm measurement is not the longest length measurement from a dip between bumps or points at the top edge of the palm to a dip between qualifying points on the brow palm. Additional details for scoring the length of moose palms is given on pages 79-85 in B&C’s scoring manual, Measuring and Scoring North American Big Game Trophies, 3rd Edition.
COLORADO’S BIGGEST BUCKS AND BULLS, 3RD EDITION FIGURE A THIS IS A POINT. GH is greater than AD. Because AB is 1”, and AC is longer than EF is wide, this is a point. Measure length AD. A
B E
C
F
G
H D
FIGURE B Alternate masking tape lines provide visual reference for the comparison of possibilities for the correct length of palm measurement. INCORRECT
Colorado’s Biggest Bucks and Bulls and Other Great Colorado Trophies, 3rd Edition by Susan Campbell Reneau and her son Richard R. Reneau is in print and ready to ship in time for Christmas. This 416-page, 8-1/2” by 11” hardcover book contains 2,136 biggame listings of trophies entered into Boone and Crockett Club, Pope and Young Club, and The Longhunter Society. More than 1,000 photographs and hundreds of hunting stories are included about Colorado typical and non-typical mule deer, typical and non-typical American elk, Shiras’ moose, typical and non-typical whitetail deer, black bear, pronghorn, cougar, bighorn and desert sheep, and Rocky Mountain goats. A chapter titled, “Your Odds for a Trophy” uses graphs, maps and charts to pinpoint the locations where the trophies were harvested, including the World’s Record typical mule deer, the former World’s Record typical American elk and many state records. Harvest and population data from 1903 to the present are charted for all Colorado big-game categories. Chapters titled, “Places to Go and Things to See in Colorado” and “Photographs and Stories of Special Interest” highlight unique Colorado trophies and places. To order copies, call the publisher at 719/661-4037 or go to www.coloradosbiggestbucksandbulls.com or e-mail them at bluemountain@ montana.com. All orders must be in U.S. dollars, and shipping costs are based upon the address location. Cost is $39.95 per book plus $5 shipping in US for the first book and $3 for each additional book. Canadian shipping is $23 (US) for the first book and $13 (US) for each additional book. Bulk discounts apply for five or more books ordered at one time. Call 719/661-4037 for pricing of bulk orders. BOOK REVIEW NOTICE
CORRECT E MEASUREMENT
There are many state, provincial, and private organizations publishing local records books that use Boone and Crockett Club’s copyrighted scoring system with permission of the Club. Since there is no single reference source for these books, and because there are many hunters who collect them, we will review them as time and space permit. Only those books that use the Boone and Club’s copyrighted scoring system and terminology will be considered for review. Please note that the Boone and Crockett Club cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data contained in these books. Some of the books may include trophies that were not scored by certified Boone and Crockett Club Official Measurers. If there is a question about the status of a trophy listed in any of these books, the Boone and Crockett Club’s records books/ archives are the final reference source to settle any and all discrepancies.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 61
JUSTIN E. SPRING | ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF BIG GAME RECORDS
The North American 29 These words, in my childhood, sparked many an imaginary trip. Prior to diving into the job market, I had visions of going everywhere and hunting the world. Then I got a degree in biology, and reality set in. But I am an optimist; I always try to find a solution to even the most insurmountable challenge and try to approach it with vigor to prove those naysayers that it can be done. As application season approaches, my scheming begins. While this article won’t tell you exactly what units you need to apply for, it will give you a general idea of states with draw deadlines before the next issue of Fair Chase comes out, and what they can offer for trophy species directed to the on-your-own trophy hunter. The first state that wants your application is Alaska. November 1 to midDecember is the draw window, and it can be done online. If you want to chase as many different species as possible, this is a mustapply state: you can cross off musk ox, bison, barren ground caribou, Alaska-Yukon moose, Sitka blacktail deer, and black bear in this state—all unguided, assuming you can draw for musk ox and bison. ALASKA Black Bear
Alaska is the only state that specifically designates certain tags for nonresident unguided bear hunts. Some states do a different draw for outfitter tags, but it is not really the same as holding a nonresident unguided tag. Southeast Alaska is home to some of the largest black bears in North America. While the state ranks No. 3 behind Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for bruins, the dense rainforests of southeast Alaska put out their fair share of huge boars. Prince of Wales Island historically was a powerhouse, and while it 62 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
still produces true monsters, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) has adopted some stringent regulations trying to curb overharvest throughout southeast Alaska. I am thinking in the next ten years or so, these effects will start to show and that area of the country may become the premier destination for those wanting to chase a huge bear on their own. Be aware if you are looking to hunt in the spring—an application for some southeast areas is 18 months prior to the start date. My application this year won’t be valid until spring of 2015 if I draw. Currently the tags are fairly easy to pull, but not quite guaranteed. In 1996 the southeast’s remote Kuiu Island put out a bear with a whopping 22-15/16 inch skull, that is also the current Alaska state record black bear.
in the records for book musk ox entries, and the top particular location in the records is Nunivak Island. It is worth noting though, that only one entry from Alaska breaks the top 150 entries and that one currently sits at No. 143. You probably won’t be breaking a World’s Record, but if you draw, you may get a musk ox. Sitka Blacktail Deer
The breakdown for Sitka blacktail deer is interesting; basically two locations account for over 90 percent of the entries— southeast Alaska, which is nearly all part of the Tongass National Forest (69,000 km2), and the Kodiak Archipelago (14,000km2). Overall they are very close with 50 percent of Sitka blacktail entries coming from Southeast and 42 percent coming from the
Musk ox
Musk ox numbers are limited in Alaska. The huntable population is a reintroduced herd, but it is doing well. You may have to hire a local resident to transport you on Nunivak Island—not a cheap hunt—but you can hunt musk ox unguided. They are long odds, but you’ll never get drawn if you don’t apply. There are two hunt periods from which to choose. The question comes down to, “Do you want to freeze or be carried off by bugs?” The early hunt has the bugs, the later hunt will be cold. While I haven’t done this hunt yet, I have heard arguments for both seasons. Alaska is the No. 1 location
Musk ox Location: Seward Peninsula, AK Hunter: Mark Wayne Smith Year: 2011 Score: 112-2/8
Black Bear Location: Kuiu Island, AK Hunter: Craig D. Martin Year: 1996 Score: 22-15/16
POWERED BY This column is dedicated to the system that supports the public hunting of public wildlife for all fair chase sportsmen, and the stories and trophies that are the result. Theodore Roosevelt believed strongly that self-reliance and pursuing the strenuous activities of hunting and wilderness exploration was the best way to keep man connected to nature. We score trophies, but every hunt is to some extent a way of measuring ourselves.
Kodiak Archipelago. An interesting note is that starting in 2000, the Kodiak Archipelago has accounted for 41 entries and the Southeast has accounted for 87. Kodiak has a higher density of book deer if you figure in entry/area, or at least a higher entry rate, but over the last decade, Southeast is where you want to be for the biggest blacktails. This one doesn’t require drawing a tag, and it is not a cheap hunt, but affordable. If you want a sheep-hunt feel, go early, climb to the highest peak above tree line, and hunt bucks in the velvet. This one costs you a plane ticket to Alaska and a floatplane ride, but after that, where you get off and what you do is up to you. It will rain; everything you have will be wet, and this should be a major consideration in your planning. A week of rain isn’t even noteworthy up there, it’s just October. I can’t do an exact calculation of bucks taken from Prince of Wales Island, but it is the No. 1 location for Sitkas, even though those listed with a more precise location such as Coffman’s Cove or Thorne Bay aren’t included in that calculation. Bison
While I am not a geneticist, I have heard Alaska’s free ranging bison herds are the purest form of the bison that once freely roamed the continent. These
hunts require a little more research that must be done since the herds frequent private and tribal lands. Access is generally not denied, but a trespass fee may be necessary, which is clearly stated in the Alaska hunting regulations. Once you draw the permit, start your preparations. This one will be intense but not impossible. There are a few options for different hunts, and by perusing the hunt draw supplement, you can get enough details to make the decision that works best for you. The Delta Junction hunt has the most entries listed, and Alaska is the No. 4 state overall for bison. Alaska-Yukon Moose
You can hunt moose in Alaska unguided, but there is lots of research to be done for this one. What I have found is that transportation becomes the issue. A drophunt can produce, but I have not had great success with a stationary location. If I am not in game, I want the ability to move. But while I may be able to walk to a better area, getting a moose back to camp could literally be impossible. A boat is mandatory, and it must be a big enough boat to get you where you want to go and get a moose out. There are some great books on float hunting, and that seems to be the Do It Yourself (DIY) way to have the best success. A jet boat and a run up some of the many rivers can put you in prime moose country—if you can find a jet boat to use. For a moose, figure out the type
Barren Ground Caribou Location: Scotty Lake, AK Hunter: Devin J. Hubble Year: 2010 Score: 434-4/8
of hunt you want, where you want to go, then look at the draw odds if a draw is necessary at all. I spent seven days there on a DIY hunt, and while we found 35 moose paddles in an hour, we never saw a legal bull. This area had lots of moose sign, and we were only a short boat ride from one of the few highways in Alaska and the tag was over-the-counter. Top bulls are still being taken, and Alaska dominates the other locations where these bulls are found with 756 entries from Alaska and 118 from the Yukon. Huge bulls have been taken all over the state. In B&C’s Trophy Search database, the Koyukuk River and Alaska Peninsula are tops with entries in the 40s, but these are very large areas. Caribou
This one is on my list of hunts to try, but I haven’t done the leg work yet. Caribou entries are significantly down for four of the five categories recognized by the Club. Mountain caribou seems to be the only category where we continue to see top trophies being entered. The 22nd Awards Period (1992-1994) had 151 barren ground caribou entries; the 28th (2010-2012) had just 25 entries, with nearly half of them being taken in previous awards periods and not entered. The DIY hunt that I seem to hear the most about is the Haul Road/Dalton Highway, you have to use a bow within a certain distance, but walk beyond that and a rifle is fine. Some bulls are harvested, but for the most part I don’t see many book bulls coming from there. There are some draw units for caribou, but I believe the majority of these are areas close to roads for herds whose numbers have dropped. There are no caribou draw hunts that I have identified that give you a better chance at a good bull than a general tag, a chartered plane, and good timing. Goat, Dall’s Sheep, Grizzly Bear, Brown Bear
Alaska law requires that you have a guide on these hunts, so put your research into an outfitter as you need documentation to even apply for these species as a nonresident from the outfitter you intend to go with. Some tags do require a draw, so plan early to get on some of the top concessions. Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 63
MONTANA
Montana’s draw is on or around March 15, but this is only for non-resident deer and elk combo licenses and the limited units for those two species for both non-residents and residents. It is worth noting the last few years these combos have not sold out and can be purchased while supplies last. You have until May 1 for Montana trophy species (moose, sheep, goat, bison, etc.), so I will break those down in a future Faire Chase article. Montana has lots of public land, and with the right technology in your hands
Typical American Elk Location: Big Horn County, MT Hunter: Salvatore Blancato Year: 2008 Score: 391-6/8 Pronghorn Location: Carbon County, WY Hunter: Howard R. French Year: 2012 Score: 91-4/8
allowing you to quickly identify public lands unguided. I have friends in Wyoming that I (check out HuntingGPSmaps.com), a DIY could hunt with—and there is an exception hunt is very feasible for any species for which if you are hunting with a resident—but you can draw or buy a tag. In terms of book- limiting access to federal public land hunting caliber trophies, Montana has a strong because of residency doesn’t sit well with me. showing for elk—No. 1 for total number of In addition, every year the state puts out a typical elk of all time and No. 2 in the last list of leftover licenses, and with some decade behind Utah. Unlike Utah, the homework and a quick finger on the mouse, majority of Montana tags can be purchased you can have some fine hunting on these over-the-counter, at least on the west side of licenses. (These are the only hunts I have the state. Barring places like the Gardiner done.) The state also offers many regional migration hunt, the Missouri Breaks, and a general tags, so extensive research must be couple other mountain ranges east of the done if considering Wyoming for a hunt. Last Continental Divide, a general license allows year the elk application had to be in by late you a brow-tined bull during the rifle season January. Moose, sheep, goat, and bison had (late October to Dec. 1 in 2013). Montana a February 28 deadline. Deer and antelope has some great elk and very unique (pronghorn) applications had to be in by opportunities. One opportunity is a general March 15. license elk hunt opening September 15 in the wilderness areas. Pronghorn In terms of mule deer, Montana A quick look at the trophy numbers doesn’t have near the showing. For typical makes it apparent that Wyoming is the place mule deer entries, Montana ranks No. 13 to be for speed goats. At the writing of this overall with only 15 entries. There are a article, the state has 1,129 entries with New couple draw units worth a shot if you are Mexico a distant second at 609 pronghorn buying a license anyway, but they are not entries. The top counties are as follows for a guaranteed draw like a preference point all of North America: state. In Montana, you build bonus points each year you apply PRONGHORN IN WYOMING TOTAL to the draw system. This is 1. Carbon County, WY 292 different from a preference 2. Sweetwater County, WY 184 point state where a certain 3. Fremont County, WY 160 percentage of the tags go to the 4. Natrona County, WY 145 top point holders. With a bonus point system, it just dictates how many times your name is in the hat, you may be in there 20 times more Shiras’ Moose than the next hunter but that never Wyoming also tops the list for Shiras’ guarantees you will be drawn. That being moose entries—365—which is nearly 160 said, you can be drawn with your name in more than the No. 2 location, Idaho (208). the hat only once your first year. In fact, the species was originally called the For the most part, the eastern part of Wyoming moose. the state is a general license hunt anywhere for mule deer. In the SHIRAS’ MOOSE IN WYOMING TOTAL western half of the state, you need 1. Teton County, WY 109 to apply for mule deer tags in 2. Sublette County, WY 63 most units. Many of these are a guaranteed tag—you just have to select a unit when you apply because Tags are not an easy draw, and some that is the only unit in which you can have claimed predation is having an effect, hunt mule deer. In terms of whitetails, but we are not seeing a major change in most units are open to whitetail buck entries at this time. A couple other locations harvest even if you have a mule deer that historically were low in moose, Utah permit for a different unit, though you and Colorado, are moving up the list in the just get to harvest one buck. last 10 years, though Wyoming still is putting out good trophy numbers. WYOMING
Wyoming is the final state in the first round of draw deadlines worth a look. I don’t apply to Wyoming for deer or elk because of their rule forbidding nonresidents to hunt wilderness
64 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
Elk
Wyoming is No. 4 in entries for typicals and No. 7 for non-typicals. Park County leads as the top particular location for bulls. (As the name implies, it is close to
POWERED BY
Shiras’ Moose Location: Teton County, WY Hunter: George E. Long Year: 1993 Score: 183-3/8
Yellowstone.) The state does put out some fine bulls every year, but when researching, remember the wilderness rule unless you intend to go guided. Mule Deer
Wyoming is no Colorado for muleys, but at No. 4 for typical and No. 5 for nontypical, they have some trophy bucks for sure. Between the two categories, they have 265 book mule deer. Lincoln and Carbon counties have put out 47 typical entries of this total and are toward the top of the big-buckproducing single locations—No. 4 with 25 entries and No. 5 with 22 entries respectively, throughout North America. The next county to consider is Sublette. With only eight entries and far further down the list (No. 30). Bighorn Sheep
Wyoming is not a great sheep state in terms of entries with only 56, versus Montana’s 727 entries. Park County has seven entries which leads the state and ranks No. 20 for entries per county throughout the U.S. Mountain Goat
Similar to sheep, there aren’t a ton of mountain goat entries from Wyoming—just six hunter-taken-trophies: Teton (3) Park (2) and Lincoln (1).
Bighorn Sheep Location: Albany County, WY Hunter: Mike J. Stillwell Year: 2010 Score: 182-5/8 Bison Location: Teton County, WY Hunter: Stephen F. Bennett, Sr. Year: 2009 Score: 128-4/8
Bison
Wyoming is where you want to go for bison hunts on your own. It only costs you $20 a year to get on the list for a number. If you draw a low number, you get the opportunity to buy a bison tag. This is a once in a lifetime hunt, and the bulls are big. Wyoming is the No. 2 state for entries behind South Dakota, where all entries are from Custer State Park. The North American 29 may not be a feasible goal in my lifetime on my budget, but through applications, a couple hundred thousand miles on my truck, and a little luck, 20 might be obtainable. Best of luck as we dive into application season. The tag you will never draw is the one you don’t put in for. Somebody has to draw. It might as well be you. n Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 65
The following pages list the most recent big game trophies accepted into the Boone and Crockett Club’s 29th Big Game Awards Program, 2013-2015, which includes entries received between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. All of the field photos in this section are from entries that are listed in this issue and are shown in bold green text.
This listing represents only those trophies accepted since the Fall issue of Fair Chase was published.
ABOVE W. Wright Parks III took this black bear, scoring 20-14/16 points, near Lyon County, Nevada, in 2012. BELOW While on a hunt in Merced County, California, in 2012, Official Measurer Donald E. Perrien, harvested this tule elk scoring 292-3/8 points.
BEAR & COUGAR FINAL SCORE
LOCATION
HUNTER
DATE MEASURER
BLACK BEAR - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 23-10/16 22 3/16 Mille Lacs Co., MN Duane C. Tiegs 2012 21 12/16 Duck Mountain, MB James D. 2012 Loeffelbein, Jr. 21 11/16 Duck Mt., SK Darrell D. Spelay 2012 21 9/16 Westmoreland Justin S. Matson 2012 Co., PA 21 7/16 Eagle Co., CO John M. Jodrie 2011 21 6/16 Marinette Co., WI Roger E. Danner 2012 21 4/16 Rusk Co., WI Kevin J. Forsting 2011 21 4/16 Steuben Co., NY Jon J. Haight 2012 21 4/16 Twiggs Co., GA Picked Up 2012 21 3/16 Kern Co., CA Jesse Herrera 2012 21 3/16 St. Louis Co., MN Steven J. Fontaine, Jr. 2012 21 2/16 Klawock, AK Robert E. Carter, Jr. 2013 21 2/16 Sawyer Co., WI Marc A. Brown 2012 21 1/16 Boulder Co., CO Edward J. Ivkov 2009 21 Pendleton Co., WV Johnny D. Bolton, Jr. 2012 20 15/16 Price Co., WI Brent J. Bast 2012 20 14/16 Clark Co., WI Joshua R. Abramczak 2012 20 14/16 Eau Claire Co., WI Allen J. Buchholz 2003 20 14/16 Lyon Co., NV W. Wright Parks III 2012 20 13/16 Shawano Co., WI Laura L. Detert 2012 20 12/16 Lincoln Co., WI Nicole M. Hoffman 2012 20 11/16 Lyon Co., NV Philip M. Muscato 2012 20 10/16 Washington Co., NY Jeffrey J. Chandler 2011 20 9/16 San Miguel Co., CO Joseph D. 2012 Hillhouse, Jr. 20 8/16 Yancey Co., NC Ron L. Hensley 2011 20 7/16 Ashland Co., WI Olivia A. Peter 2011 20 7/16 Clearwater Co., MN John R. Brown 2010 20 7/16 Navajo Co., AZ Mark A. Rahrer 2011 20 7/16 Polk Co., WI Russell A. Erickson 2012 20 6/16 Bingham Co., ID Cameron S. Dalley 2012 20 6/16 Beaver River, AB Derrick W.J. Tabaka 2012 20 6/16 Quebec Unknown 2006 20 5/16 King Co., WA Thomas W. 2012 Hutchinson 20 5/16 Mecklenburg E. Bryant Reese, Jr. 2012 Co., VA 20 5/16 Lac Bouchette, QC Jocelyn Gaudreau 2011 20 4/16 Willow River, BC Ian B. Murray 2013 20 2/16 Chelan Co., WA Gregory S. Clayton 2012 20 2/16 San Bernardino David J. Vangsness 2012 Co., CA 20 1/16 Clarion Co., PA William F. Fleming 2011 20 1/16 Ethelbert, MB Steve K. Johnson 2009 20 Bennington Co., VT Michael S. Davenport 2012 20 Cibola Co., NM Gabriel A. 2012 Hernandez-Baca 20 Clearwater Co., MN Charles E. Lalley 2012 20 Clinton Co., PA Daniel J. Coons 2012 20 Wasco Co., OR Katie A. Kelley 2012
C. Pierce P. Snedden R. Soyka D. Razza T. Archibeque S. Zirbel L. Zimmerman D. Le Vasseur B. Bond J. Busic R. Dehart J. Gunnels L. Zimmerman S. Grebe B. Trumbo M. Miller S. Godfrey K. Zimmerman C. Lacey D. Goers A. Loomans M. Trousdale R. Johndrow D. Moreland P. Thompson S. Zirbel K. Hisey R. Skinner K. Zimmerman D. Kelsey D. Bromberger A. Beaudry J. St. Charles D. Boland A. Beaudry M. Monita S. Wilkins J. Busic E. Defibaugh R. Howing C. Smiley R. Madsen R. Dehart R. D’Angelo T. Brown
GRIZZLY BEAR - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 27-13/16 24 8/16 24 6/16 24 5/16
Kimsquit River, BC Wilf C. Lloyd Besa River, BC Ian K. Chase-Dunn Point Hope, AK Kevin O. Iverson
2002 E. Swanson 1986 R. Hall 2012 O. Opre
ALASKA BROWN BEAR - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 30 12/16 229 1/16 28 1/16 27 5/16
66 nn Fair FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
Wide Bay, AK Ekwok, AK Ugak Bay, AK
Peter L. Clark Timothy G. Schmitz Gary D. English
2011 W. Cooper 2012 M. Miller 2013 N. Lawson
RECENTLY ACCEPTED TROPHIES ALASKA BROWN BEAR CONTINUED 26 7/16 26 5/16
Hinchinbrook Island, AK East Fork Yentna River, AK
Chad D. Johnson
2012 L. Lewis
Ryan V. Halbower
2012 G. Bandrow
COUGAR - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 16-4/16 116 1/16 Carrot Creek, AB Dennis C. Hirschfeld 2013 J. Graham 15 4/16 Shoshone Co., ID Clinton L. Allman 2012 M. Demick 15 2/16 Perry Creek, BC Wilf C. Lloyd 1993 E. Swanson 15 2/16 Williston Lake, BC Ray Jackson 2011 D. Turchanski 14 14/16 Grand Co., CO Jason L. Kirwin 2013 R. Berggren 14 13/16 Montrose Co., CO John K. Redd 2011 R. Black 14 11/16 Flathead Co., MT David E. Turner 2013 J. Williams 14 9/16 Daggett Co., UT Chance D. Heckethorn 2012 R. Selner 14 8/16 Montrose Co., CO Mason V. Reichard 2012 E. Bartholomew
PACIFIC WALRUS - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 147-4/8 140 141
St. Lawrence Island, AK
Picked Up
1972 F. Noska
ELK & MULE DEER
FINAL GROSS SCORE SCORE LOCATION
HUNTER
DATE MEASURER
TYPICAL AMERICAN ELK - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 442-5/8 406 5/8 414 7/8 393 6/8 398 6/8 390 5/8 403 386 3/8 395 3/8 386 1/8 394 7/8 384 4/8 394 7/8 378 5/8 389 3/8 377 6/8 387 7/8 375 4/8 393 6/8 369 2/8 378 369 1/8 376 5/8 367 1/8 379 3/8 362 4/8 374 360 368 2/8
Lincoln Co., NV Jennifer M. Lytle 2012 Coconino Co., AZ Charles M. Hatch 2013 Park Co., MT Picked Up 2011 Garfield Co., UT Justin L. Walker 2012 Delta Co., CO Unknown 1980 Fremont Co., WY Brandon M. Grigsby 2012 Jefferson Co., CO David C. Bender 2012 Garfield Co., CO Hunter J. Norris 2012 Powell Co., MT Paul M. Turley 2012 Lewis & Clark R. Michael 2012 Co., MT Strickland, Jr. Tooele Co., UT Enrico D. Braucher 2012 Jefferson Co., MT Stephen D. Holland 2012 Clark Co., ID Bo D. Billman 2012 Sweetwater Co., WY Trent L. House 2012
R. Hall R. Stayner R. Selner C. Wenger R. Selner R. Anderson M. Thomson R. Hall D. Waldbillig C. Ruth
ABOVE Chad D. Johnson was on a 2012 hunt near Hinchinbrook Island, Alaska, when he harvested this Alaska brown bear, scoring 26-7/16 points. BELOW While hunting in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, in 2012, Wendy E. Zens harvested this typical mule deer scoring 199-2/8 points. She was shooting a 7mm Remington Mag.
B. Ihlenfeldt F. King R. Atwood B. Wilkes
NON-TYPICAL AMERICAN ELK - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 478-5/8 411
419 5/8 West Kootenay, BC Jody N. Sherstobitoff 2012 L. Hill
ROOSEVELT’S ELK - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 404-4/8 311 2/8 336 5/8 Jefferson Co., WA 295 5/8 303 7/8 Humboldt Co., CA
Picked Up Ronald W. Settles
2011 D. Waldbillig 2012 G. Hooper
TULE ELK - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 379 292 3/8 296 2/8 Merced Co., CA Donald E. Perrien 2012 H. Tonkin 282 5/8 291 4/8 Mendocino Co., CA Thomas J. Edgington 2012 D. Biggs
TYPICAL MULE DEER - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 226-4/8 200 2/8 200 1/8 199 2/8 198 3/8 198 2/8 196 2/8 194 3/8 191 5/8 191 2/8 191 1/8 190 1/8 189 3/8 189 2/8 188 3/8 186 7/8 185 7/8 185 2/8
216 3/8 216 5/8 203 1/8 203 5/8 213 214 7/8 198 5/8 195 1/8 196 7/8 202 5/8 192 1/8 193 6/8 198 3/8 200 196 4/8 197 3/8 197 5/8
Duchesne Co., UT Oneida Co., ID Rio Arriba Co., NM Gooding Co., ID Mohave Co., AZ Tompkins, SK Calderbank, SK Pueblo Co., CO La Plata Co., CO Sonora, MX Sheridan Co., WY Lincoln Co., NV Duchesne Co., UT Pinchi Lake, BC Sonora, MX Bengough, SK Eagle Co., CO
Unknown 2007 Scott B. Weeks 2011 Wendy E. Zens 2012 Mickey D. Cockerham 1905 Hub R. Grounds 2012 Darcy W. Driedger 2011 Kent Clelland 2011 Tommy G. Gowing 2012 David W. Peterson 2012 Roderick M. Pinkett 2013 Dustin R. Harvey 2010 Anthony N. Cawalla 2012 Bryan Anderson 1956 Jonathan A. Leon 2012 Joseph L. Marullo 2013 Adam B. Carlson 2012 Robert J. Lee 2012
R. Hall H. Morse T. Watts C. Nielson R. Stayner B. Seidle A. Long M. Ledbetter B. Smith T. Watts W. Butler M. Trousdale M. Fowlks R. Berreth J. Tkac M. Halirewich R. Atwood
Share your field photos with us! Follow: @BooneandCrockettClub Tag: #booneandcrockettclub Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 67
RECENTLY ACCEPTED TROPHIES TYPICAL MULE DEER CONTINUED 184 3/8 183 2/8 182 3/8 182 1/8 181 2/8 181 180 1/8
192 3/8 187 204 7/8 195 7/8 205 1/8 206 203 7/8
Delta Co., CO Frank F. Flynn 2012 Sonora, MX Eugene J. Golla 2013 Sonora, MX Peter A.B. Widener, Jr 2013 Sonora, MX Allen A. Ehrke 2013 Sonora, MX David A. Ehrke 2013 Frenchman River, SK Blair K. Mitchell 2012 Elmore Co., ID Robert P. Law 2012
R. Gubler P. Gauthier M. Barrett B. Abele B. Abele H. Dreger B. Penske
NON-TYPICAL MULE DEER - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 355-2/8 240 4/8 230 4/8 230 3/8 221 7/8 221 2/8 220 3/8 217 3/8
248 5/8 235 1/8 233 228 6/8 224 4/8 225 5/8 222 4/8
Park Co., WY Mark W. Rentschler Garfield Co., CO Unknown Sonora, MX Thomas E. Farmer Montezuma Co., CO Donald E. Story, Jr. Killam, AB Cody C. Klatt Salt Lake Co., UT Picked Up Cache Co., UT Kendra Covert
2012 1980 2012 1957 2012 2006 1905
R. Hatfield R. Selner J. Tkac B. Long C. Dillabough R. Hall R. Hall
TYPICAL COLUMBIA BLACKTAIL - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 182-2/8 155 1/8 136 7/8 135 4/8 129 7/8 127 4/8 125 6/8
158 4/8 140 2/8 145 137 5/8 130 5/8 135 3/8
Trinity Co., CA Polk Co., OR Lewis Co., WA Mendocino Co., CA Lincoln Co., OR Glen Valley, BC
Gary R. Morrow George G. Harustak Roscoe White Liver R. Guzman Alexander P. Lewis Harry A. Ruscheinski
2011 2012 1960 2012 2012 2012
S. Boero D. Poole M. Opitz R. McDrew T. Rozewski A. Berreth
TYPICAL SITKA BLACKTAIL DEER - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 134
ABOVE Mark W. Rentschler was on a 2012 hunt in Park County, Wyoming, when he took this non-typical mule deer scoring 240-4/8 points. BELOW Steven J. Pasewald anchored this typical whitetail deer with his .270 Winchester Mag in Clark County, Wisconsin, in 2012. The buck scores 178-4/8 points.
114 3/8 118 3/8 112 5/8 116 112 3/8 118 3/8 110 2/8 115 6/8 110 112 109 113 1/8 108 2/8 111 4/8 104 2/8 107 7/8 102 5/8 110 101 1/8 105 100 3/8 111 100 2/8 110 100 1/8 103 6/8
Wrangell Island, AK Ryan G. Miller Muddy River, AK Brad Taylor Kupreanof Kirstoffer P. Thynes Island, AK Admiralty Island, AK Picked Up Mitkof Island, AK Mike Payne Admiralty Island, AK David T. Gibson Thomas Bay, AK John E. Jensen Prince of Brad Taylor Wales Island, AK Salmon Bay Brad Taylor Lake, AK Portage Bay, AK John E, Jensen Prince of Wales Brad Taylor Island, AK Prince of Wales John E. Jensen Island, AK Whale Pass, AK Mike Payne
2000 M. Nilsen 1996 M. Nilsen 2004 M. Nilsen 2012 2000 2012 2009 1994
M. Nilsen M. Nilsen D. Larsen M. Nilsen M. Nilsen
1998 M. Nilsen 2003 M. Nilsen 2004 M. Nilsen 1988 M. Nilsen 1985 M. Nilsen
WHITETAIL DEER
FINAL GROSS SCORE SCORE LOCATION
HUNTER
DATE MEASURER
TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 213-5/8 192 3/8 204 2/8 187 2/8 190 4/8 182 192 3/8 180 5/8 197 3/8 180 3/8 193 1/8 180 182 3/8 178 6/8 197 2/8 178 4/8 181 5/8 178 4/8 181 4/8 178 1/8 182 4/8 177 3/8 183 5/8 176 7/8 191 3/8 176 3/8 189 3/8 176 179 4/8 175 7/8 194 3/8 175 5/8 191 175 4/8 193 2/8 174 7/8 182 7/8 174 186 4/8 173 5/8 177 5/8 173 4/8 191 2/8
68 nn Fair FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
Buchanan Co., IA Fountain Co., IN Pierce Co., WI Robertson Co., KY Clearwater Co., MN Jefferson Co., MS Van Buren Co., IA Clark Co., WI Yazoo Co., MS Dubuque Co., IA Boone Co., KY Columbia Co., WI Marshall Co., IA Allamakee Co., IA Clark Co., WI Crawford Co., WI Allamakee Co., IA Buffalo Co., WI Trigg Co., KY Clarke Co., IA Montgomery Co., TN
Cole M. Horkheimer Johnny D. Gregory Eugene R. Heineman Aaron K. Cochran Dale C. Hartman Thomas R. Provance William G. Still, Jr. Steven J. Pasewald Joseph S. Holloman Bryan J. Stelken Jim Hill Bruce E. Meier John W. Muggli Dalton D. Christoffer Unknown Gary F. Karner Mark C. Arends Carl W. Johnson Jason Lancaster Mark A. Moser Andrew C. Friel
2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 1930 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012
J. Ream R. White S. Fish J. Phillips C. Pierce G. Wilson D. Pfeiffer S. Zirbel D. Doughty P. Farni W. Cooper S. Zirbel G. Salow L. Miller S. Zirbel C. Gallup J. Nordman C. Gallup W. Cooper B. Harriman D. Grandstaff
RECENTLY ACCEPTED TROPHIES TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER CONTINUED 173 3/8 174 4/8 Westlock, AB Ivan D. Maygard 2012 W. Paplawski 173 2/8 177 Delaware Co., IA John A. Kertels 2012 P. Farni 173 1/8 201 Racine Co., WI James R. Oelke 2012 S. Zirbel 173 174 5/8 Mercer Co., MO Picked Up 2013 D. Ream 172 7/8 180 Sauk Co., WI David J. Hosking 2012 K. Zimmerman 172 6/8 175 7/8 Iowa Co., WI Jeffrey J. Wilkinson 2012 D. Meger 172 5/8 189 4/8 Allamakee Co., IA Neil E. Galema 2012 L. Miller 172 4/8 180 4/8 Polk Co., WI Kevin A. Bystrom 2012 D. O’Brien 172 1/8 186 6/8 Henry Co., KY Brian L. Pusch, Jr. 2012 R. Heller 171 5/8 184 Hamilton Co., OH Robert P. Wood 2012 R. Perrine 171 2/8 180 1/8 Stutsman Co., ND Michael P. Koushkouski 2012 L. Wahlund 171 1/8 198 6/8 Sheboygan Co., WI Kevin A. McNeven 2012 S. Zirbel 171 198 5/8 Aitkin Co., MN Timothy P. Birkeland 2012 D. Petrick 170 7/8 177 2/8 Miami Co., OH Derk E. Kingrey 2012 M. Wendel 170 7/8 178 7/8 Van Buren Co., IA William G. Still, Jr. 2012 D. Pfeiffer 170 5/8 175 1/8 Worcester Co., MA Scott A. Carpenter 2012 J. Brown 170 4/8 173 1/8 Goodhue Co., MN Daniel C. Stedman 2012 R. Berggren 170 3/8 180 Richland Co., WI Wade M. Mapes 2012 J. Lunde 170 3/8 178 1/8 Wood Co., WI Darin D. Langholff 2012 T. Heil 170 2/8 177 Qu’Appelle Lake, SK Riley F. Ottenbreit 2012 H. Dreger 170 1/8 182 5/8 Miner Co., SD James B. Blain 2012 W. Jackson 170 1/8 178 3/8 Wicomico Co., MD Timothy T. Nielsen 2012 W. Jones 170 176 5/8 Dunn Co., WI Paul C. Lanzer 2012 K. Zimmerman 170 182 4/8 Harrison Co., IA Rodney A. Scott 2012 S. Larison 170 188 6/8 Wayne Co., NY Jeffrey T. Staheli 2012 W. Tyler 169 4/8 192 Hubbard Co., MN Daniel B. Houchin 2012 R. Naplin 169 4/8 174 1/8 St. Louis Co., MN Allen R. Haedrich 2012 T. Mattison 169 1/8 179 3/8 Craig Co., VA Don W. Sledd 2012 W. Knox 169 1/8 183 6/8 Kingston, ON Richard J. Mosko 2012 E. Defibaugh 169 175 Washington Co., MN Paul C. Martin 2012 S. Ashley This non-typical whitetail deer, scoring 187-1/8 points, was 168 4/8 180 2/8 Marathon Co., WI Jeremy J. Wawrzyniec 2012 T. Heil taken by Kyle A. Ison while on his 2012 hunt in Washington 168 2/8 177 3/8 Dodge Co., MN Nathan P. Snyder 2012 J. Lunde 168 1/8 174 2/8 Powell Co., KY Troy J. Herald 2012 D. Weddle County, Ohio. He was shooting his 20 gauge shotgun. 167 7/8 178 1/8 Warren Co., IA Devin M. Erickson 2012 L. Briney 167 5/8 181 7/8 Johnson Co., IA David E. Sherman 2012 L. Briney 167 5/8 171 1/4 Owen Co., IN Richard A. White 2012 D. Belwood 167 1/8 173 Charlton Co., GA Cameron M. Crews 2012 W. Cooper 166 7/8 169 1/8 Grayson Co., KY David E. Hayes 2012 W. Cooper 166 6/8 173 3/8 Koochiching Bruce A. Turban 2012 S. Grabow Co., MN 166 5/8 181 7/8 N. Battleford, SK Matthew P. Goll 2011 J. Sanesh 166 4/8 176 4/8 Brown Co., KS Brandon W. Howard 2012 J. Jackson 166 3/8 171 5/8 Chicot Co., AR Robert B. Barnes 2012 C. Gray 166 3/8 181 2/8 Knox Co., ME Jamie L. Robbins 2011 A. Wentworth 166 2/8 188 3/8 Racine Co., WI Terry R. Weis 2012 K. Zimmerman 166 172 2/8 Caldwell Co., KY David Lanham 2012 W. Cooper 166 192 5/8 Fillmore Co., MN Daniel D. Harvey 2012 K. Fredrickson 166 192 1/8 Vinton Co., OH Ronald G. Collins 2012 M. Wendel 165 7/8 178 Brown Co., IL Bobby Wolfe 2012 G. Wilson 165 7/8 172 5/8 Dallas Co., IA Michael L. Hoger 2012 K. Fredrickson 165 4/8 173 Otter Tail Co., MN Charles A. Carlson 2012 S. Grabow 165 2/8 175 1/8 Leslie Co., KY Dylan M. Thomas 2012 N. Minch 165 1/8 167 5/8 Wood Co., WI David A. Beyer 2012 T. Heil 165 170 1/4 Isanti Co., MN Glenn E. Jahn 2012 S. Grabow 165 169 2/8 Pierce Co., WI Jerry F. Duden 2012 P. Gauthier 165 175 Vernon Co., WI Jason M. Levendoski 2012 S. Grabow 165 174 1/4 Wyandotte Co., KS Irven P. Cheney, Jr. 2012 L. Smith 164 7/8 170 4/8 St. Croix Co., WI Spencer D. Peterson 2012 S. Ashley 164 6/8 169 7/8 Essex Co., VT Perley A. Whipple, Jr. 1960 C. Smiley 164 4/8 186 3/8 Crawford Co., WI Arnie Roper 2012 C. Gallup 164 3/8 171 Jasper Co., IL Tod A. Ashburn 2012 M. Asleson 164 3/8 174 5/8 Jefferson Co., NE Mark H. Niederklein 2012 R. Stutheit 164 3/8 182 6/8 Kosciusko Co., IN Robert A. Jones 2012 R. Graber 164 2/8 167 Arkansas Co., AR Shane A. Fisher 2011 D. Doughty 164 2/8 171 6/8 Hamilton Co., OH Brian D. Laycock 2012 R. Karczewski IN THE WEEDS 164 1/8 171 6/8 Trigg Co., KY Barry Littlejohn 2012 W. Cooper 164 1/8 185 3/8 Wabaunsee Co., KS Paul A. Eldridge 2009 S. Zirbel A net 200-inch mule deer! Who cares about weeds in 164 166 2/8 Dane Co., WI David L. Halverson 2012 A. Crum front of his face? Start snapping the shutter. But when 163 7/8 169 5/8 Clinton Co., IA Jason W. Loose 2012 L. Briney finished, take a few seconds to reach out and pull them 163 6/8 169 7/8 Pike Co., GA Dennis E. Smith 2012 T. Gregors 163 5/8 176 3/8 Morton Co., KS Richard G. Wydoski 2012 S. Grebe or snap off any brush in the way, and pop a few more 163 4/8 168 6/8 Hart Co., KY Lucio A. Mucignat 2012 W. Cooper shots. I guarantee you the latter will be the one of the 163 4/8 189 5/8 Pendleton Co., KY Christopher J. Huhn 2012 K. Stockdale two versions you will land on as your best of the best. 163 3/8 182 5/8 Harrison Co., IA Freely Myers 1960 K. Fredrickson Scott B. Weeks took this typical mule deer, scoring 200-1/8 points, while hunting in Oneida County, Idaho, in 2012. 163 1/8 170 7/8 Darke Co., OH Kenneth O. Young III 2013 M. Wendel
SPONSORED BY
FIELD PHOTOGRAPHY
TIP NO. 16
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 69
RECENTLY ACCEPTED TROPHIES TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER CONTINUED 163 166 2/8 Douglas Co., MN Richard W. Johnson 2012 S. Grabow 162 6/8 175 5/8 Jasper Co., IN Bryant S. Alson 2011 J. Bogucki 162 3/8 176 6/8 Clayton Co., IA Robert J. Creery 2009 L. Miller 162 2/8 178 5/8 St. Louis Co., MN Mark S. Zollar 1987 J. Lunde 161 6/8 167 Licking Co., OH Ralph J. Wood 2012 J. Satterfield 161 4/8 166 1/8 Langlade Co., WI Michael A. Plaza 2012 T. Heil 161 3/8 189 6/8 Lake Gray, AB Elizabeth M.F. Thomas 2012 D. Bromberger 161 2/8 165 3/8 Kings Co., NB Arnold E. Alward 1995 W. Hanson 161 1/8 171 5/8 Melville, SK Tyler F. Somogyi 2012 K. Somogyi 161 173 4/8 Gallia Co., OH Rick M. Boggs 2012 M. Wendel 161 163 1/8 Wabaunsee Co., KS Paul A. Eldridge 2002 D. Goers 160 6/8 163 3/8 Sauk Co., WI Scott E. Sprecher 2012 K. Zimmerman 160 5/8 176 2/8 Cass Co., MN Benjamin R. Nelson 2012 T. Rogers 160 4/8 167 Outagamie Co., WI Steven J. Everts 2012 S. Zirbel 160 3/8 166 4/8 Trimble Co., KY Picked Up 2013 K. Stockdale 160 2/8 163 6/8 Marathon Co., WI Donald R. Carolfi 2012 T. Heil 160 2/8 186 Waupaca Co., WI Kevin K. Foley 2012 P. Gauthier 160 1/8 169 4/8 Buchanan Co., MO Jerimie J. Carson 2011 K. Gierat 160 1/8 172 4/8 Marshall Co., IN Kaleb M. Brady 2012 J. Bogucki
ABOVE This Shiras’ moose, scoring 164-6/8 points, was taken by Shawn E. Cruse on a 2012 hunt in Jackson County, Colorado. He was shooting a .300 Weatherby. BELOW Paul E. Wollenman harvested this typical Coues’ whitetail, scoring 117 points, with his .300 Ultra Mag in Sonora, Mexico, in 2013.
70 nn Fair 70 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
NON-TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 333-7/8 254 4/8 260 4/8 Grayson Co., TX Robert K. Taylor 2012 E. Stanosheck 243 6/8 249 6/8 Qu’Appelle Lake, SK Douglas A. Broich 2012 H. Dreger 239 5/8 246 2/8 Henry Co., IA Benjamin A. Thomson 2012 G. Salow 239 2/8 246 7/8 Trumbull Co., OH Picked Up 2013 M. Kaufmann 231 237 7/8 Butler Co., OH Cody R. Gwinner 2012 M. Wendel 230 1/8 236 2/8 Otter Tail Co., MN Michael J. Jacoby 2012 C. Pierce 225 1/8 232 1/8 Jefferson Co., WI Picked Up 2012 S. Zirbel 221 6/8 230 2/8 Fulton Co., IL Picked Up 2006 A. Crum 221 1/8 223 3/8 Macoupin Co., IL Ryan M. Dambacher 2011 T. Walmsley 220 6/8 228 7/8 Otter Tail Co., MN Brian D. Ehnert 2012 M. Harrison 220 1/8 227 1/8 La Salle Co., IL Robert R. Weber, Jr. 2013 K. Gierat 215 3/8 221 Des Moines Co., IA Frederick R. Swihart II 2012 L. Miller 214 225 6/8 Houston Co., MN Daniel R. Langan II 2012 C. Pierce 212 3/8 218 7/8 Clearwater Co., MN Cindy E. Wishard 2012 S. Grabow 212 3/8 224 7/8 Fayette Co., IL Rex W. Rosenberger 2012 R. Willmore 209 219 2/8 Coshocton Co., OH Jamie R. Dorsey 2012 M. Wendel 208 7/8 225 1/8 Shelby Co., TN R. Lockwood Griffin 2012 W. Walters 206 5/8 213 5/8 Clark Co., OH James C. Twiggs 2012 M. Wendel 206 3/8 209 6/8 Waukesha Co., WI Branden J. Pfeifer 2012 P. Gauthier 205 3/8 213 7/8 Henry Co., IL Jon R. Wolf 2012 M. Staser 204 6/8 215 2/8 Macoupin Co., IL Rye C. Brown 2012 E. Hendricks 202 2/8 209 4/8 Crawford Co., WI Michael A. Check 2012 C. Gallup 201 1/8 209 3/8 Maverick Co., TX John A. Cardwell 2013 E. Fuchs 201 208 5/8 La Salle Co., TX James M. Newport 2011 J. Stein 200 2/8 213 Lucas Co., IA Bradley A. Jensen 2012 R. Bishop 198 6/8 203 5/8 Shawano Co., WI Brian R. Downer 2012 D. Bathke 198 5/8 204 2/8 Chautauqua Co., NY Justin D. Jacques 2012 R. Turk 198 1/8 203 6/8 St. Croix Co., WI Steven R. Rositzki 2012 S. Ashley 197 7/8 207 4/8 Dodge Co., WI Nathanael J. Scheuers 2012 M. Miller 197 4/8 206 5/8 La Crosse Co., WI Justin S. Smith 2012 J. Hjort 197 1/8 203 1/8 Kleberg Co., TX Rowland S. Reyna 2012 M. Hellickson 197 200 1/8 Val Verde Co., TX John E. Williams, Jr. 2012 J. Arnold 196 4/8 206 2/8 Campbell Co., KY Timothy L. Lauer 2012 J. Phillips 196 3/8 206 4/8 Maverick Co., TX Robert C. Kleimann 2012 B. Carroll 196 1/8 211 5/8 Marshall Co., IL Andrew M. LeRoy 2012 M. Staser 196 207 2/8 Dane Co., WI Rodney J. Kellerman 2012 J. Lunde 195 5/8 200 5/8 Marshall Co., KY Cody Weathers 2012 W. Cooper 195 4/8 207 5/8 Crow Wing Co., MN Timothy J. Zerby 2012 D. Boland 195 3/8 201 La Salle Co., TX Bryan T. Fischer 2012 J. Stein 195 1/8 201 5/8 Clayton Co., IA Elizabeth A. Moon 2012 L. Miller 195 208 4/8 Teulon, MB Joshua M. Warren 2012 J. Hayduk 193 5/8 206 3/8 Ashland Co., OH Anthony J. Collins 2012 M. Wendel 193 3/8 221 1/8 Highland Co., OH Tyler R. Osterloh 2012 M. Wendel 193 1/8 202 2/8 Green Co., WI Brian D. Williams 2012 A. Crum 192 4/8 203 5/8 Rock Co., WI Nicholas J. Roth 2012 K. Zimmerman 192 207 3/8 Ogle Co., IL Randall S. Lindemann 2011 K. Zimmerman 191 7/8 196 6/8 Barron Co., WI Randy L. McDonough 2012 K. Zimmerman 191 7/8 197 3/8 Iowa Co., WI Thomas R. 2012 A. Crum Hermansen 191 4/8 198 3/8 Polk Co., WI Michael J. Pearson 2012 R. Berggren 191 3/8 201 2/8 Ste. Genevieve Scott M. Schmieder 2012 D. Roper Co., MO 190 2/8 200 2/8 Saline Co., MO Billy W. Ramey 2009 B. Harriman
NON-TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER CONTINUED 190 2/8 198 Trempealeau Co., WI Charles A. Gauger 2012 S. Godfrey 190 1/8 196 3/8 Shawano Co., WI Adam L. Fischer 2012 B. Ihlenfeldt 189 7/8 194 3/8 Des Moines Co., IA Dorothy K. Shaffer 2012 S. Grabow MOOSE & CARIBOU 188 5/8 193 2/8 Grant Co., KY Jeremy T. Miller 2012 W. Cooper FINAL GROSS 188 4/8 196 Lake Co., IL Erik A. Borg 2012 B. Scarnegie SCORE SCORE LOCATION HUNTER DATE MEASURER 188 2/8 191 4/8 Dane Co., WI Travis J. Holler 2012 A. Crum CANADA MOOSE WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 242 188 1/8 191 4/8 Cole Co., MO John Baker 2012 L. Redel 202 2/8 209 6/8 Saulteaux River, AB Russell T. Stone 2012 C. Cook 188 1/8 205 6/8 Kent Co., MD Brian H. Miller 2012 W. Jones 199 206 6/8 Dome Creek, BC Seppo Juvonen 2012 R. Berreth 188 193 7/8 Goodhue Co., MN Micah E. Jeppesen 2012 J. Lunde 198 7/8 203 7/8 Meat Cove, NS David B. Philpott 2012 D. Caldwell 187 4/8 196 6/8 Breckinridge Co., KY Michael K. Ford 2012 T. Smith 198 2/8 200 5/8 Marks Lake, ON William D. Elchuk 2012 D. Nuttall 187 2/8 194 2/8 Carroll Co., KY Jake Stanton 2012 W. Cooper 195 6/8 200 1/8 Bison Lake, AB Greg A. Speitelsbach 2012 D. 187 2/8 199 Logan Co., OH Mark A. Clinehens 2012 M. Wendel Bromberger 187 2/8 196 Marion Co., KS Stuart Leppke 2012 M. Murrell 195 2/8 199 3/8 Dease Lake, BC Jonavin Holbrook 2012 R. Berreth 187 1/8 196 1/8 Washington Co., OH Kyle A. Ison 2012 S. Boham 195 1/8 198 6/8 Battle River, AB Michael J. Golka 2012 D. 186 7/8 194 5/8 Iowa Co., IA Clarke D. Hammes 2012 L. Miller Bromberger 186 7/8 197 Linn Co., IA Jeffrey C. Miller 2012 S. Zirbel 191 5/8 201 1/8 Lynn Lake, MB Martino A. Vergata 2011 J. Hayduk 186 3/8 194 7/8 Carroll Co., IL Mark J. Broshous 2012 P. Gauthier 190 7/8 194 3/8 Aroostook Co., ME Eric J. Clark 2012 A. Wentworth 186 3/8 196 3/8 Jackson Co., WI Mark S. Knutson 2012 L. 188 4/8 196 5/8 Muncho Lake, BC Fred J. Fanizzi 2012 M. Pavlik Zimmerman 186 3/8 199 6/8 Nowata Co., OK Earnest J. Pugh 2012 M. Crocker 186 3/8 193 3/8 Pulaski Co., KY Hayden G. Jones 2012 D. Weddle ALASKA-YUKON MOOSE - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 261-5/8 186 2/8 189 6/8 Lac qui Parle Bob L. Clemensen 1972 D. Meger 238 6/8 250 5/8 Fish River, AK Hunter M.H. Gray 2012 P. Burress Co., MN 236 6/8 240 5/8 Chekok Lake, AK Kade V. LeKites 2012 R. Deis 186 1/8 191 1/8 Wilson Lake, SK Nora D. Lazurko 2012 H. Dreger 220 7/8 223 6/8 Farewell, AK Roger W. Spade 2012 L. Redel 185 7/8 194 6/8 Polk Co., MN Michael S. Strand 2010 S. Grabow 212 1/8 216 5/8 Kaliakh River, AK Lennart Ljungfelt 2011 O. Opre
TYPICAL COUES’ WHITETAIL - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 144-1/8 120 1/8 114 7/8 125 6/8 108
Sonora, MX Gila Co., AZ Gila Co., AZ Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Paul E. Wollenman Andrew P. Hampton Waylon L. Pettet Brad S. Hiatt
2013 2013 2012 2013
F. Fanizzi C. Goldman D. Bathke M. Golightly
104 4/8 104 2/8 100 4/8 100 3/8
107 7/8 109 7/8 102 2/8 103 1/8
Sonora, MX Santa Cruz Co., AZ Cochise Co., AZ Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Scott M. Hushbeck Robert J. Rimsza Richard R. Fuller Robert J. Rimsza
2013 1985 2011 2012
D. Perrien P. Dalrymple S. Troutman P. Dalrymple
SHIRAS’ MOOSE - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 205-4/8 166 1/8 164 6/8 158 4/8 153 4/8 146 1/8 146 142 4/8
173 3/8 174 2/8 168 6/8 157 1/8 155 1/8 148 5/8 146 2/8
Clearwater Co., ID Nathan L. Weimer Jackson Co., CO Shawn E. Cruse Pend Oreille Co., WA David M. Davey Spokane Co., WA Shaley M. Hannem Sublette Co., WY Gary L. Hittle Idaho Co., ID Jacob R. Cahill Beaverhead Co., MT Allen R. Ormesher
141 6/8 144 4/8 Teton Co., WY
Scott G. DeMars
2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 1994
S. Wilkins D. Waechtler K. Vaughn D. Waldbillig M. Barrett S. Wilkins J. Spring
2012 B. Zundel
111413
117 111 2/8 110 3/8 106 3/8
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO MAKE A SPOTTING SCOPE AS GOOD AS OUR RIFLESCOPES?
NOW.
Nightforce Optics, Inc. 336 Hazen Lane • Orofino, ID 83544 208.476.9814 NightforceOptics.com
t
t
Available with straight or angled eyepiece Accepts iPhone®4 and 5
t
THE NEW TS-82™ XTREME HI-DEF™ 20-70x
APO flourite glass for the truest, most brilliant color possible. Vivid, razor-sharp, high-contrast images from edge to edge. Exceptional low-light performance through its 82mm objective lens. Quick, precise focus even while wearing gloves. The TS-82™ exceeds—not just meets—the brillance and quality of the most highly respected European spotting scopes. Finally. A spotting scope worthy of the Nightforce name. And of your investment.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 71
RECENTLY ACCEPTED TROPHIES WOODLAND CARIBOU - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 419-5/8 322 1/8 330 3/8 Meelpaeg Lake, NL Werner H. Schulz, Jr. 2006 J. Ohmer 286 3/8 302 6/8 Buchans, NL Edwin B. Sampsell III 2012 T. Ross
CENTRAL CANADA BARREN GROUND CARIBOU - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 433 4/8 378 2/8 394 7/8 Pellatt Lake, NU 360 7/8 365 7/8 Munroe Lake, MB
Richard Knowlton, Jr. 2009 W. Cooper James L. Cummins 2011 L. Wilf
HORNED GAME
FINAL GROSS SCORE SCORE LOCATION
HUNTER
DATE MEASURER
PRONGHORN - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 95
ABOVE James R. Rogers, Jr., took this pronghorn in 2012 in Las Animas County, Colorado, scoring 83-4/8 points. BELOW Thomas J. Lovrin harvested this desert sheep, scoring 174-1/8 points, with his .30-06 Springfield in Clark County, Nevada, in 2012.
86 85 84 2/8 83 4/8 83 4/8 82 2/8 81 4/8 81 2/8 80 2/8 80
86 5/8 85 4/8 85 1/8 84 4/8 85 1/8 83 4/8 81 7/8 81 4/8 80 5/8 80 3/8
Socorro Co., NM Dallas F. Munroe Carbon Co., WY Gerard J. Amaro Yavapai Co., AZ Kyle R. Slone Las Animas Co., CO James R. Rogers, Jr. Musselshell Co., MT Brandon C. Johns Quay Co., NM Phillip G. Harris Fremont Co., WY Stuart A. Hall Carbon Co., WY James M. Clegg Carbon Co., WY Samuel J. Hill Fremont Co., WY Brian S. Brower
2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2010
R. Stayner R. Stayner S. Hill J. Stein G. Taylor R. Rockwell B. Wilkes B. Wilkes B. Wilkes R. Dufault
BISON - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 136-4/8 123 6/8 123 6/8 116 6/8 116 2/8
126 125 117 2/8 117
Custer Co., SD Davis Co., UT Zama City, AB Grand Co., UT
William A. Fleming Mark E. Hampton Phillip C. Chwachka Cindylin R. Wopsock
2012 2012 2013 2009
K. Zielke W. Bowles C. Dillabough R. Hall
ROCKY MOUNTAIN GOAT - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 57-4/8 50 49 2/8 47
50 5/8 50 48 1/8
Wedeene River, BC Picked Up Sage Creek, BC Tyler T. Press Uyak Bay, AK Michael E. Robison
1986 E. Swanson 2012 D. Patterson 2012 D. Heffner
MUSK OX - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 129 119 2/8 120 Coppermine Mike J. Coelho River, NU 109 6/8 110 7/8 Coppermine Eric Coelho River, NU 105 2/8 106 1/8 Nash Harbor, AK Kam P. St. John
2013 D. Perrien 2013 D. Perrien 2013 R. Deis
BIGHORN SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 208-3/8 197 4/8 191 5/8 189 7/8 185 2/8 181 178 5/8
198 3/8 192 190 1/8 185 6/8 181 1/8 179
Drinnan Creek, AB Elk River, BC Blaine Co., MT Asotin Co., WA Grand Co., UT Missoula Co., MT
Dean B. Erickson Darrell G. Hurley Kelsey A. Roebling Michael J. Carpinito Lewis Myore Ben Nentwig
2002 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012
D. Skinner G. Markoski J. Morey J. Cook R. Hall V. Edwards
DESERT SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 205-1/8
Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation 1. Publication Title: Fair Chase 2. Publication Number: 1077-4627 3. Filing Date: 10/28/2013 4. Issue Frequency: Quarterly 5. Number of Issues Published Annually: Four 6. Annual Subscription Price: $35.00 7. Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication: Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801-2753 Contact Person: Julie L. Tripp Telephone: 406/542-1888 8. Complete Mailing Address of Headquarters of Publisher: Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801-2753 9. Full Names and Complete Mailing Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing Editor: Publisher - Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801-2753 Editor - Mark Steffen, Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801-2753 Managing Editor - Julie L. Tripp, Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801-2753 10. Owner: Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801-2753 11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders: None 12. Tax Status: Has Not Changed During the Preceding 12 Months 13. Publication Title: Fair Chase 14. Issue Date for Circulation Data: Summer 2013 15. Extent and Nature of Circulation – Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months and No. Copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Date (respectively): a. Total Number of Copies: 8,000 and 8,000 b. Paid Circulation (1) Mailed Outside-County Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS Form 3541: 5,386 and 5199 (2) Mailed In-County Paid Subscriptions Stated on PS Form 3541: 0 and 0 (3) Paid Distribution Outside the Mails Including Counter Sales and Other Paid Distribution Outside USPS: 0 and 0 (4) Paid Distribution by Other Classes of Mail Through the USPS: 569 and 564 c. Total Paid Distribution: 5,955 and 5,763 d. Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (1) Free or Nominal Rate Outside-County Copies Included on PS Form 3541: 512 and 690 (2) Free or Nominal Rate In-County Copies Included on PS Form 3541: 0 and 0 (3) Free or Nominal Rate Copies Mailed at Other Classes Through the USPS: 1,086 and 1,016 (4) Free or Nominal Rate Distribution Outside the Mail: 182 and 217 e. Total Free or Nominal Rate Distribution: 1,780 and 1,923 f. Total Distribution: 7,735 and 7,686 g. Copies Not Distributed: 245 and 302 h. Total: 7,980 and 7,988 i. Percent Paid: 76.99% and 74.98% 16. Publication of Statement of Ownership: X If the publication is a general publication, publication of this statement is required. Will be printed in the Winter 2013 issue of this publication.
72 nn Fair 72 FairChase ChaseWinter Winter 2013 2013
184 6/8 178 4/8 174 1/8 170 4/8 169 6/8 169 4/8 168 5/8 166 3/8 165 2/8
185 4/8 180 6/8 175 3/8 170 7/8 171 170 169 6/8 166 7/8 166 1/8
Socorro Co., NM Maricopa Co., AZ Clark Co., NV Coconino Co., AZ Baja Calif. Sur, MX Sonora, MX La Paz Co., AZ Nye Co., NV Clark Co., NV
Lloyd R. Stenersen Todd E. Mast Thomas J. Lovrin Harry A. Hosler Sumner R. Cullom Daniel D. Kluth Michael C. Cupell Jared R. Pekuri Joseph L. Dibble
2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013
L. Rominger C. Goldman H. Grounds M. Golightly L. Fulmer C. Nielson M. Zieser S. Sanborn T. Humes
DALL’S SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 189-6/8 166 1/8 166 3/8 Mackenzie Mts., NT Thomas W. Stewart 2012 D. Bromberger
STONE’S SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 196 6/8 63 5/8 164 4/8 Prophet River, BC Unknown 1960 L. Gatlin 160 5/8 161 1/8 Dease Lake, BC Jeffrey H. Moleski 2012 R. Berreth
A LOOK BACK...
B L AC K BEAR Tom J. Van de Car took this black bear 20 miles south of Wistaria, British Columbia. He had traveled from Kansas for this hunting trip. No date is mentioned when the bear was taken, but it was measured February 1st, 1950, and was awarded first prize in the 1949 Big Game Competition. Two interesting notes were written on the back of the photos. Van de Car wrote, “I am 5'11"”, on the back of one and, “I am wearing a size 40 cruising coat” on the other. See more unique vintage hunting photos and stories featured in Vintage Hunting Album.
B&C
O
N LI NE
Preview the book online before you order!
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 73
The trophies in the field photos on the following pages have all been accepted in Boone and Crockett Club’s 29th Big Game Awards Program.
74 n Fair Chase Winter Fall 2011 2013
TOP ROW
In 2013, David E. Turner harvested this 14-11/16 point cougar while on a hunt in Flathead County, Montana. Cody Wathers harvested this non-typical whitetail deer scoring 195-5/8 points with his .30/06 Springfield, in 2012, while hunting in Marshall County, Kentucky. Thomas W. Stewart took this Dall’s sheep scoring 1661/8 points while hunting the Mackenzie Mountains, in Northwest Territory during the 2012 season. He was shooting a .270 Winchester Short Mag.
MIDDLE ROW
Jim Hill was bowhunting in Boone County, Kentucky, in 2012, when he harvested this typical whitetail deer, scoring 177-3/8 points. Robert E. Carter, Jr. took this black bear, scoring 21-2/16 points, in 2013 while hunting near Klawock, Alaska. This typical mule deer, scoring 191-5/8 points, was taken by Tommy G. Gowing while hunting in Pueblo County, Colorado, in 2012.
BOTTOM ROW
This typical American elk, scoring 369-1/8 points, was taken by Enrico D. Braucher in Tooele County, Utah, during the 2012 season.
FEATURE PHOTO
Daniel K. Kluth was on a hunt in Sonora, Mexico, during the 2012 season when he took this desert sheep scoring 169-4/8. He was shooting a .270 Winchester.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 75
FEATURE PHOTO
Ryan K. Welch was bow hunting in Atchison County, Kansas, in 2012, when he took this non-typical whitetail deer, scoring 194-3/8 points.
76 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
TOP ROW
This bighorn sheep was taken by Kelsey A. Roebling, while hunting in Blaine County, Montana, during the 2012 season. This ram scores 1897/8 points. In 2012, James D. Loeffelbein, Jr. harvested this 21-12/06 inch black bear while bowhunting near Duck Mountain in Manitoba. Dennis E. Smith took this typical whitetail deer, scoring 163-6/8 points, with his 7mm Remington Mag, while on a 2012 hunt in Pike County, Georgia. Eric Coelho was hunting near Coppermine River, Nunavut, in 2013 when he harvested this musk ox, scoring 109-6/8 points.
MIDDLE ROW
Gerard J. Amaro was hunting in Carbon County, Wyoming, in 2012 when he shot this pronghorn scoring 85 points. Fred J. Fanizzi was on a hunt near Muncho Lake, British Columbia, in 2012, when he harvested this Canada moose scoring 188-4/8 points. Richard Knowlton, Jr. took this Central Canada barren ground caribou, scoring 378-2/8 points, in 2009 while hunting near Pellatt Lake, Nunavut, with his guide Sam Kapolak. This typical mule deer, scoring 191-2/8 points, was taken by David W. Peterson. He was hunting in La Plata County, Colorado, during the 2012 season. He was shooting his .300 Ultra mag.
BOTTOM ROW
Jennifer M. Lytle was hunting with her .300 Winchester Short Mag, in Lincoln County, Nevada, in 2012 when she harvested this typical American elk scoring 406-5/8 points. While on a 2013 hunt in Sonora, Mexico, Scott M. Hushbeck took this 104-4/8 point typical Coues’ whitetail deer.
Fair Chase Winter 2013 n 77
The
B&C REGULAR MEMBER
CHAIR Hunter Ethics Sub-Committee
Why do your kids hunt? Just last weekend I was visiting with a couple of the other cooks at a wild game dinner here at the county fairgrounds (oddly enough, we ended up sitting around a campfire rather late in the evening, actually–into the wee hours of the next morning), and we determined that while we all consider ourselves hunters, each of us has a very different perspective of what is important about hunting. We also had different opinions as to why and how we pass it on to the next generation. We had become friends quickly in our efforts to make enough mouth-watering wild game masterpieces to serve the 3,000 guests expected the next day. Many of us had acquired our wild game meat afield, and naturally when the opportunity arose, we spent considerable time discussing our experiences as hunters. It was a spirited discussion with much more common ground than not, as you might expect. However, it is interesting to note that while we were all about the same age, we had significantly different backgrounds and upbringings. This diversity of the group and the ambience of the setting provided a remarkable opportunity for all of us to compare notes. We quickly found that we all love to hunt and we are all committed to passing down our hunting heritage. We agreed easily that hunting is a right, not a privilege, that it is worthy of the effort and that it can and should be beneficial to the wild animals and wild places. What might surprise you is that rather than regale one another about our successes afield and the grand trophies we had each put on the wall, we ended up talking most about why, how, and what we taught our kids about hunting. One of the fellows explained that he taught his kids that the deer they hunt are food first. He taught them to hunt successfully, to shoot true and sure, to fill their tags, and to take proper care of the meat. He showed them how to feed themselves and their family. He explained that the meat was free of steroids and chemicals and that it is a natural part of man’s diet as God intended. He was not sanctimonious. He was pragmatic. He taught his children, both daughters, to be respectful, to be precise, to hunt effectively, and to value their rights as hunters. He taught them be involved and to do what is necessary to make sure others after them have the same opportunities. I was humbled by the purity of his intent. The next cook told us that it is all about the pursuit—the harder, the better. He loves the mountain hunt. He teaches his boys that the rigors and the challenges are where the true value of the hunt is derived. He takes them on quests and teaches them to be highly skilled at the climb, the stalk, the camp; and he showed them how to manage when the weather changes suddenly. He helped them learn to be exceptionally resourceful in
q To be precise
He taught his children
To be , to hunt
,
respectful Effectively
And to value their rights as hunters.
Last Word
By Daniel A. Pedrotti Jr. THE ETHICS OF FAIR CHASE
78 n Fair Chase Winter 2013
their efforts. He says they spend countless hours reveling in their adventures and their love of the hunt provides some of the glue that binds them together as a family. His excitement and enthusiasm were inspiring. Another father told us about how he taught his young hunters that there is a right of ascendency on their family ranch. He said that in order to manage the natural competitiveness among his children and those of his siblings, they had a set of rules as to how big a buck a kid could take based on the child’s age and proficiency. You see, the family ranch had no shortage of opportunity and so they devised a program where the kids had to earn their place by demonstrating the necessary skill and discipline to be a success by their ranch standards. I happen to know a couple of the kids that learned to hunt on this ranch, and while it may sound like a silverspoon upbringing, these kids are serious, dedicated, and highly skilled in their pursuits off the ranch. They are all members of hunter-conservation groups and they each invest in and work for the good of our community. I admire how this family nurtures its hunters. Another learned from his father and then taught his children how taking hunters on their sheep and goat ranch could supplement the family income and help keep the ranch together. Yet another told us how he learned to hunt entirely on his own and that he made sure his kids were raised to understand and value their right as hunters. I was delighted and surprised to see such conviction about our hunting heritage derived from so many different perspectives. I could find myself adopting each philosophy. I gained something valuable from each of these dads, and I will factor it all in to my teaching for the benefit of my children and theirs. Incidentally, I found it particularly poignant that none of the dads stressed antler inches as a primary objective in their lessons. We all learned something that night/morning. It was a great campfire. The next night, we shared our blessings with our friends and neighbors as we nurtured them with food from the wild, not the grocery store. And, just in case you are wondering, Pedrotti’s Wild Pizza Team cooked pizzas on the grille – Buck Luck and Dove Love. n
Two-Volume Set, available in: Classic Cloth Edition $375/set Limited to 5,000 sets, with French fold double-sided dust jackets.
Deluxe Leather Edition $2900/set Signed, Numbered & limited to 500 sets, hand-bound in premium Tuscan leather with hand-crafted clamshell case.
Call Toll Free Today!
(866) 520-2001 For more details visit www.yellowstonepress.com
KIMBER MOUNTAIN RIFLES. Unequaled accuracy, dependability & light weight.
The lightest production hunting rifles ever offered, Mountain Ascent™ (top) and Montana™ models weigh as little as 4 pounds, 13 ounces. They are chambered in 13 proven calibers.
Mountain Ascent rifles have custom touches like fluted bolt handle, bolt body and barrel; plus a hollow bolt knob. This cuts weight without compromising accuracy.
Mountain Ascent models feature a muzzle brake to reduce felt recoil. A cap to protect threads if the brake is removed and matte black ring mounts are also included.
Kimber® mountain rifles combine classic features in a light weight, stainless steel and Kevlar/carbon fiber package that guarantees performance. Actions offer the unequaled dependability of controlled-round feeding and extraction, and safety levers are the positive 3-position wing. Match grade barrels, chambers and triggers ensure accuracy. The new Mountain Ascent models go even farther. Fluting on the barrel, bolt body and bolt handle cuts additional weight, and a removable muzzle break cuts recoil. Stocks even wear Gore™ Optifade™ Open Country Concealment. Weigh the options, then visit a Kimber Master Dealer to pick up your next rifle.
Kimber mountain rifles have premium Kevlar/carbon fiber stocks with both pillar and glass bedding to lock in accuracy regardless of hard use or conditions.
T H E C H O I C E O F A M E R I C A’ S B E S T
kimberamerica.com (888) 243-4522
Kimber offers nearly 200 purpose-built pistols and rifles to meet any need. ©2012, Kimber Mfg., Inc. All rights reserved. Information and specifications are for reference only and subject to change without notice.