Fair Chase Summer 2025 Proof by Boone and Crockett Club

WELCOME TO THE OLDEST WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION IN NORTH AMERICA

Established in 1887 by Theodore Roosevelt and George Bird Grinnell, the Boone and Crockett Club was founded by hunters who dedicated their lives to the conservation of wildlife. As the turn of the 20th century approached our nation, these men had to make a choice: stand by and watch our cherished wildlife disappear or work for the protection and propagation of our wildlife resource. Thankfully, they rose to the challenge and chose the latter.

Today, the Boone and Crockett Club continues to build upon the legacy of wildlife conservation established by Roosevelt and Grinnell. We will continue the fight for conservation so future generations can enjoy the bounty of our wildlife resource.

It is the mission of the Boone and Crockett Club to promote the conservation and management of wildlife, especially big game, and its habitat, to preserve and encourage hunting and to maintain the highest ethical standards of fair chase and sportsmanship in North America.

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB AND

FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS

CLUB

Club President – Anthony J. Caligiuri

Secretary – Richard R. Capozza

Treasurer – Benjamin A. Strickling III

General Counsel – John P. Schreiner

Executive Vice President – Administration

Mary Webster

Executive Vice President – Conservation

Steven Leath

Vice President of Administration

John P. Evans

Vice President of Big Game Records

Richard T. Hale

Vice President of Conservation Research and Education

CJ Buck

Vice President of Conservation Policy

Simon Roosevelt

Vice President of Communications

Michael L. Evans

Foundation President – R. Terrell McCombs

Class of 2025

Class of 2026

Class of 2027

B&C STAFF

Michael J. Opitz

Paul V. Phillips

John L. Hendrix

Chief Executive Officer – Tony A. Schoonen

Director of Big Game Records – Kyle M. Lehr

Director of Conservation Programs –Luke Coccoli

Director of Finance and Administration –Abra Loran

Director of Communications – Jodi Stemler

Deputy Director of Communications –Karlie Slayer

Assistant Director of Big Game Records –Jennifer Schwab

FOUNDATION

Foundation President – R. Terrell McCombs

Secretary – Michael J. Opitz

Treasurer – Charles W. Hartford

Vice President – John P. Evans

Vice President – Paul M. Zelisko

Class of 2025 John P. Evans

Steve J. Hageman

R. Terrell McCombs

T. Garrick Steele

C. Martin Wood III

Class of 2026

Robert W. Floyd

Charles W. Hartford

Benjamin A. Strickling III

John A. Tomke

Jeffrey A. Watkins

Class of 2027

Gary W. Dietrich

B.B. Hollingsworth, Jr.

Tom L. Lewis

Michael J. Opitz

Paul M. Zelisko

Accounting Manager – Anne Labbe

Development Program Manager – Jodi Bishop

Digital Strategies Manager – Mark Mesenko

Sales and Corporate Relations Manager –Michelle Scheuermann

Office Manager – Kate Thornburg

TRM Ranch Manager – Mike Briggs

Conservation Education Programs Manager –

Madison Todd

Office Assistant – TJ Gould

FAIR CHASE PRODUCTION STAFF

Editor-in-Chief – Karlie Slayer

Managing Editor – PJ DelHomme

Conservation and History Editor

Steven Williams

Research and Education Editors

John F. Organ

Jonathan Mawdsley

Hunting and Ethics Editor

Mark Streissguth

Assistant Editors

Jodi Bishop

CJ Buck

Kendall Hoxsey-Onysko

Kyle M. Lehr

Marc Mondavi

Tony A. Schoonen

Jennifer Schwab

Jodi Stemler

Julie L. Tripp

Editorial Contributors

Jacob Aston

Perry S. Barboza

Marcus Blum

Charlie R. Booher

Tony Caligiuri

PJ DelHomme

Kyle M. Lehr

Shawn Lentz

Jake Forrest Lunsford

Jonathan R. Mawdsley

Andrew McKean

Karlie Slayer

Wayne van Zwoll

Ryland Wieding

Photographic Contributors

Donald M. Jones

L. Victor Clark

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 1077-3274) 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.

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

Phone: (406)542-1888 ext. 215

Uniquely Rockefeller Opportunities Await

Since 1882, we’ve helped redefine what it means to preserve and grow wealth for some of the world’s most distinguished individuals, families and entrepreneurs. Our extraordinary breadth of capabilities, paired with the exclusive access to the Rockefeller network, allows us to help you meet all of life’s oppor tunities Life’s grandest visions require thoughtful plans. That ’s why we star t by understanding your ambitions taking into account your immediate and longer-term needs and develop a roadmap designed to help you achieve your goals.

Har tford Wealth Par tners is proud to suppor t the critical conservation work of the Boone & Crockett Club.

A SUMMER CELEBRATION

Summer in Montana makes up for winter—most of the time. This year, it feels like winter will never end as new storms bring feet of snow to the mountain passes. Ski hills are still spinning lifts a good three days after the first official day of spring. It is reassuring to know that summer will, eventually, make an appearance. Once the snow recedes and glacier lilies bloom, Montana comes to life as thousands of tourists flock to places like Glacier National Park. They swarm towns like Whitefish outside of Glacier and the oncesleepy cow town of Bozeman, which sits an hour’s drive from Yellowstone National Park. I can’t blame them. The parks are awesome, and they exist because of a few original Boone and Crockett Club members. And in Missoula, right outside Boone and Crockett Club headquarters, the Clark Fork River runs right through town. On any given day, I look out my office window and see surfers riding Brennan’s Wave and throngs of floaters in oversized black inner tubes. We call it the tuber hatch.

I don’t like to leave Montana in the summer, but there is one event that makes me excited to pack my bags, and it’s coming up. You’ll find me and most of the headquarters staff in Springfield, Missouri, for the 32nd Big Game Awards. For three days (July 24-26), we will celebrate the latest record-book entries at Johnny Morris’ Wonders of Wildlife National Museum & Aquarium. We have a number of

new World’s Records on display, including Justin Kallusky’s British Columbia Rocky Mountain goat, which is a sight to behold. In addition, we have over 100 trophies that will be on display, including Virginia’s first-ever elk entry. This magnificent bull was killed by Austin Prieskorn, who was 15 at the time of his hunt. If you’re curious how this young man from New Mexico killed a whopper bull, then turn to page 32 of this issue. It’s a heartwarming tale of a father and son hunt that was going to be a success regardless of a filled tag.

Stories like Austin’s abound at the 32nd Big Game Awards. The theme of this year’s awards is the “Peak of Pursuit” because we have so many entries that push the limits of what’s capable, both for hunters and conservation.

Thanks to the generosity of Club member Johnny Morris and Bass Pro Shops, we could not ask for a better venue to host all of these outstanding entries. If you’ve never been to Johnny Morris’ Wonders of Wildlife National Museum and

FROM THE EDITOR

Karlie Slayer EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Aquarium, you are missing out. The aquarium has been consistently voted the #1 aquarium in the U.S. by USA Today. The halls and exhibits rival the biggest and best natural history museums in the country. I think my favorite part is walking past the live penguins every morning on the way to work the show. It’s a great way to enjoy a cup of coffee before the work begins.

An event of this magnitude takes a massive amount of planning, and it feels like our heads spin a little too fast right now as we plan, but this event is worth the effort. From guest speakers like Jason Matzinger and Melissa Bachman to the Jack Steele Parker Generation Next banquet, the 32nd Awards is worth leaving lovely Montana behind for a few days. If you’re on the hunt for a family-friendly and fun summer weekend, I encourage you to come see us in July. n

85%

400

997

RESTORATION AND RESPONSIBILITY:

THE ONGOING ROLE OF HUNTER-CONSERVATIONISTS

Tony Caligiuri PRESIDENT

Through the years, I have taken part in many restoration projects out of personal interest—vintage Corvettes, a Super Cub or two, 1950s gas pumps, and just about every firearm imaginable. I am well familiar with the process when it comes to those tangible things held together by nuts, bolts, screws, and rivets. Still, I have never really thought of our roles as hunter conservationists as that of a restorer until I saw the theme of this summer’s issue of Fair Chase

Take, for example, Jake Forrest’s excellent article on the history of wolf reintroductions in the lower 48, particularly regarding Idaho, on page 40. In full disclosure, I have never supported the idea of any wolf reintroductions into the lower 48. My opinions come not only from reading a great amount of both pro- and anti-wolf literature but also from personal interactions and observations of wolves while

hunting in Wyoming and Idaho, as well as spending considerable time on our elk and pronghorn lease in New Mexico. Granted, my circle of friends consists of more hunters, ranchers, and outfitters than it does pro-wolf advocates, and even though I find some issues with how Jake frames some of his prose, I try to look at everything with an open mind. This article is one of the best I have ever read on wolf reintroduction and restoration.

Jake traces the path of wolf restoration in the lower 48, from political posturing and the ESA to recovery and legalized hunting, playing fairly to both sides of the table. He utilizes concise overall pack numbers and harvest objectives that are easy to follow and understand. Some may find the article controversial, but I think everyone who reads it will find it informative and balanced. The broader question it raises is something we, as conservationists, must

constantly grapple with—where do we go when restoration is complete, and how do we maintain healthy, sustainable populations?

It’s one thing to bring a species back from the brink, but quite another to navigate the complexities of long-term management in a landscape shaped by competing interests. Federal agencies, state and tribal agencies, and a variety of non-profit organizations (NGOs) all have a stake in these issues, and meaningful dialogue is essential in determining the best course of action for the future. Wolves are just one example, but the same challenges apply to many species nationwide.

Along these restoration lines, this issue also features great reads on Columbian whitetail deer, Texas desert sheep, Virginia elk, and, of course, bison—the original Boone and Crockett restoration poster child. These stories remind us that conservation is an ongoing process, requiring continued effort, vigilance, and adaptability. Each success story serves as a testament to what can be accomplished when hunters, biologists, and land managers work together with a shared vision for the future of wildlife.

This issue also features an article on the challenges facing the restoration of wild sheep in general. While we continue to find FROM THE

Read more about bison restoration on page 20.

It’s one thing to bring a species back from the brink, but quite another to navigate the complexities of longterm management in a landscape shaped by competing interests. Federal agencies, state and tribal agencies, and a variety of NGOs all have a stake in these issues, and meaningful dialogue is essential in determining the best course of action for the future.

great success restoring species like elk, desert sheep, and whitetail deer, other sheep species face many setbacks. When I first hunted Dall’s sheep in the Yukon in the late 1980s, my guide and I rode into one drainage where we could see 18 legal rams from one glassing spot. In recent years, finding 18 legal thin horn rams in an entire season of hunting, much less one day, borders the impossible. Both disease and political issues have hampered Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep translocations. Where we made great strides in developing new herds over the last half century, the future does not hold the same promise—at least until we can better wrap our arms around the M. ovi infections that are

not only spreading to wild sheep from domestic flocks but more recently from wild sheep to other wild sheep. As we enjoy the fruits of past conservation efforts, we must also look ahead. The legacy we leave will be determined by how well we balance restoration with responsible management. The goal is not just to bring species back, but to ensure they have a place in our wild landscapes for generations to come. That responsibility falls on all of us who care deeply about the future of our hunting traditions and the wild places that define them. n

Caligiuri with his Stone’s sheep, scoring 175-3/8 points. It was taken near the Muskwa River in British Columbia in 2018.

you

The Boone and Crockett Club asks that

please thank our Trailblazers with your patronage.

CONSERVATION

POLICY COLUMN

THE POWER OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN LAND STEWARDSHIP AND RESTORATION

Conservation easements are among the most effective tools available to ensure the longevity of open spaces, sustainable land management, and healthy wildlife populations. In a world where economic pressures like rising property taxes and land values increasingly push private landowners toward subdivision and development, easements provide a powerful alternative; they’re a way to keep working lands working while protecting their ecological integrity for future generations.

The Boone and Crockett Club has long supported the availability of perpetual conservation easements as a tool for private landowners. Examples of excellent projects abound.

Idaho Forest Group (IFG), in partnership with Kaniksu Land Trust, recently finalized one of the largest conservation easements in

this land trust’s history—protecting nearly 2,000 acres along Prichard Creek, an important tributary of the Coeur d’ Alene River. This agreement protects extensive riparian habitat (10.5 miles of the 14-mile creek) and a large swath of forested uplands. Along with completing the conservation easement that protects this area from subdivision, IFG is also investing in restoration efforts from centuries of mining degradation along this important tributary, which is notable for its native trout fishery.

Conservation easements are also an important tool for our partners at Wildlife Mississippi, who work closely with private timberland landowners and agricultural producers in the Mississippi River Delta to conserve and restore bottomland hardwoods. In planning the future of this eco-region, producers need certainty and incentives to keep their topsoil right

Charlie R. Booher

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB

POLICY CONSULTANT

PROFESSIONAL MEMBER

side up and ensure that our country’s most productive agricultural acres are producing crops, while less productive agricultural ground is used for its best and highest purpose.

Another example of the success of conservation easements is the Boone and Crockett Club’s own Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Ranch on Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front. This region is one of North America's most ecologically significant landscapes, serving as a vital transition zone between the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains. The ranch is permanently protected from development through a decades-old conservation easement with The Nature Conservancy while remaining a working cattle operation. The property serves as a living laboratory for wildlife research and land management, reinforcing the Club’s commitment to conservation education and habitat stewardship. By anchoring conservation efforts in the region, the ranch also plays a pivotal role in ensuring the economic and ecological sustainability of Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front.

Nearly 2,000 acres along Prichard Creek, an important tributary of the Coeur d’ Alene River in Idaho, are now protected through a conservation easement. This agreement protects extensive riparian habitat (10.5 miles of the 14-mile creek) and a large swath of forestlands.

BENEFITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Roughly 70 percent of the Lower 48 states is privately owned, meaning landowners' decisions have outsized impacts on the conservation and restoration of wildlife habitat. While public lands are essential to wildlife conservation in this country, private lands provide critical migration corridors, nursery grounds, and winter ranges for many species—some we hunt and many that we’ll never pursue.

Private landowners face mounting economic pressures that can make selling to developers the most financially viable option.

Conservation easements offer an alternative by compensating landowners—via cash payments or tax benefits—for maintaining their land in a largely undeveloped state while continuing traditional uses like agriculture, ranching, and forestry. These voluntary land protection agreements, often brokered through land trusts or conservation organizations, place

specific restrictions on development while allowing landowners to retain ownership and management rights.

Conservation easements are entirely voluntary and highly adaptable to meet the unique needs of buyers, sellers, and donors. Each agreement is carefully designed to align with a landowner’s objectives while ensuring the easement supports, rather than restricts, the property’s long-term sustainability. Some easements include provisions for public access, such as hunting or fishing, while others do not.

Funding for these agreements comes from various sources, and due to their flexibility, no two easements are exactly alike. In some cases, easements are primarily used to secure permanent public access to adjacent lands, while in others, they focus on preserving critical habitat, such as elk wintering grounds, where public access may not align with conservation goals. Though conservation easements may not be the right choice for everyone, they serve as a valuable legal and financial tool for many landowners.

Evidence of the Club’s working cattle ranch is present in the photos pulled from the trail cameras used by researchers studying the conservation benefits of sustainable land use on mammal communities. See other animals that were caught on camera on page 78.

By limiting development, easements create conditions that support native vegetation regrowth, soil stabilization, and water quality improvement. These tools help restore connectivity between fragmented habitats, allowing wildlife populations to thrive and adapt to environmental changes.

Conservation easements provide a suite of financial benefits supporting landowners and conservation efforts. Landowners can receive payment in exchange for permanently restricting certain types of development. Federal and state programs often provide tax deductions or credits for landowners who establish conservation easements. These agreements ensure continued agricultural and forestry operations, supporting rural economies while maintaining open landscapes. In addition to economic benefits, protected lands provide critical habitat for game and non-game species, ensuring sustainable populations for hunters and conservationists. Easements also play a crucial role in restoration ecology by allowing degraded landscapes to recover through strategic land management.

By limiting development, easements create conditions that support native vegetation regrowth, soil stabilization, and water quality improvement. These tools help restore connectivity between fragmented habitats, allowing wildlife populations to thrive and adapt to environmental changes. In many cases, landowners engaged in easements actively participate in habitat restoration efforts, from wetland rehabilitation to

forest regeneration—all of which contribute to a more resilient and biodiverse landscape.

While conservation easements are a proven tool for land protection, they are not without challenges. In high-growth regions like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the demand for conservation easements far exceeds available funding. Some critics argue that easements place unnecessary restrictions on land use, though conservation easements are always voluntary agreements between willing buyers and sellers. Long-term monitoring and enforcement are crucial to maintaining the integrity of conservation easements, ensuring that the intended protections remain in place for generations to come.

advocating for state and federal funding, backing legislation that strengthens these tools, and recognizing the invaluable role private lands play in landscape-scale conservation. Investing in conservation easements today safeguards the future of America’s working lands and the wildlife that depend on them.

At a time when open spaces are rapidly disappearing, conservation easements provide a forward-thinking solution that balances economic sustainability with conservation goals. These agreements empower landowners to protect their land while continuing traditional uses, ensuring a lasting legacy for future generations of wildlife and outdoor enthusiasts. Hunters and conservation advocates play a crucial role in supporting conservation easements by

Conservation easements are a vital tool in advancing our ongoing efforts in accomplishing our mission “to promote the conservation and management of wildlife, especially big game, and its habitat, while preserving and encouraging hunting and maintaining the highest ethical standards of fair chase and sportsmanship in North America.” We must ensure that these tools remain available for those who wish to use them and that ample resources are invested in advancing this landowner-driven approach to conservation. n

For us, conservation isn’t about hugging trees or trading in our jerky for granola. It’s about understanding how important our wild places are to the traditions of hunting and fishing, and how critical it is to sustain those traditions by keeping habitats and game populations healthy for the next generations of sportsmen.

See our latest habitat conservation projects at mygrizzly.com.

WAYNE C. VAN ZWOLL

Restoring RIFLES

Unlike wild places, rifles don’t change with age. But hard use of either begs a healing touch.

This post-war Marlin rifle has had good care. Its steel shows a little “carry” wear, its stock almost none.

“Can you make ‘em look better but not tampered with?”

“Yes, sir!” said the kid. Wiping oil-blackened hands on an apron of the same shade, the cadaverous proprietor plucked a nondescript rifle from the rack behind, dark under its dithering fluorescent bulb. “See these dings?” He leveled a bony finger at the forestock. The kid nodded. It bore enough dings that asking which seemed pointless. “Steam out the big dents. Leave a few honest scars, like a gun guy might expect. Take out fresh scratches, but don’t leave any clues that you did. Match the original finish best you can.”

“OK.” The kid peered solemnly at the wounds, as if plotting the erasure of some and the cosmetic surgery needed to make others respectable.

“Dull black wood doesn’t sell, yah? You’ll have to dig out some, uh, uh …,” the scarecrow raked his stubble with an oily finger for the word. “Color.”

The kid nodded, as sagely as he could. “How many….?”

“Many as you want.”

“OK.” The kid looked down, shuffled his feet, “How much … I mean … what’s….”

“Pay. Yah, yah. That depends on the result. Let’s start at $25 for each stock.”

I may have pocketed a couple of dollars for each hour spent making that first scarred walnut more presentable but not too presentable. Weeks later, I returned the rifle. Bringing it close to eye, the old man peered down his beak and grunted approval. An armload of bruised and neglected long guns followed me home. A bonanza in battered wood, thought I, licking my chops.

Of that bundle, a Remington 700 came first to hand. A few scuffs and scratches to touch up. But a cruel surprise lurked in the stock’s glossy sheath of RKW polymer, borrowed from bowling pins. Unlike oil finish that could be feathered to blend with fresh oil, RKW didn’t feather. My attempts merely added

A few decades ago, surplus 1903 Springfields sold for $29.95. Many were “sporterized.” Though still relatively common in this condition, these rifles may lose some trade value if altered.

scratches that called attention to the injury. I’ll have to take it all down to wood! More bad news followed: RKW proved all but impervious to paint stripper; it had to be abraded off. Hard, tiresome work, sanding required a careful hand, lest it dish or ripple flats or blunt edges. Sanding behind grip caps, in comb flutes, against tangs, and along fore-stock lips could be especially tricky.

I would find Weatherby Mark V rifles, and others, wore equally obstinate finishes.

Projects from that gun shop long ago might have cured me of trying to spruce up worn rifles. But I learned much from the servitude and am loath to waste an education. Now, dozens of rifle and shotgun stocks later, I still relish the chance to revive walnut, to re-ignite color and figure veiled by garish stains and thick coats of unspeakable goop, by age, dirt, and gun oil.

Nursing rifle stocks back to health was once cheap entertainment. In my youth, Sears, Roebuck,

and other mail-order firms peddled surplus infantry rifles for as little as $15. I recall 1903 Springfields at $29.95. If battle bruises—more often rack damage—annoyed the new owner, he could sand out blemishes and re-varnish. “Sporterizing” might include lopping the forestock just behind the central barrel band and fitting a recoil pad. An ambitious lad could cough up $10 for a semi-inletted walnut blank, then complete the shaping and apply finish. I paid $7.50 for a plain stick from Herters, the Minnesota mail-order source for all wonders useful in the woods, whose brickthick wish books infested school lockers of wayward youths. With crude tools foreign to any stock-maker, I fought that walnut into submission. The tasteless result replaced the issue stock on a .303 Short Magazine Lee Enfield that would tumble my first whitetail.

To early sawyers, the supply of American black walnut must have seemed inexhaustible—as did old-growth pine forests in the upper Midwest and redwoods and Sitka spruce on the Pacific Coast. Short decades later, however, aggressive logging had toppled forests centuries in the making. Walnut went fast. Ideal for gun-stocks, it was hard but easier to work than oak, also lighter in weight and less apt to shatter. Quilted maple was prized but scarce, and its pallor begged a stain. Hickory lacked walnut’s warm colors.

As our frontier rolled west, Edward Cox Bishop saw a business opportunity in walnut. On the eve of the Depression, he moved to Warsaw, Missouri, and with his son John, built a sawmill. His first stocks went to Remington for shotguns. In 1935 he began turning out semi-finished rifle-stocks. Four years later, he invited Reinhard Fajen of nearby Stover to join his company. Fajen custom-finished Bishop stocks. WW II took the men

Boyd’s Gunstocks of Mitchell, South Dakota, sells finished and unfinished wood and laminated stocks in myriad forms for “just about every rifle and shotgun you can name.”

on different paths, but both returned to their walnut. In 1949 John Bishop, who’d acquired his father’s interest in the business, suggested to Fajen that they merge. This marriage lasted a couple of years; then Bishop sold out to Jack Pohl, a relative. Fajen started his own company and by the 1990s, had 80 employees producing stocks for 200 models of shotguns and rifles! Warsaw was now “walnut central” stateside. In 1992 Larry Potterfield bought the Reinhard Fajen Gunstock Company. In ‘95, starting work on an upscale wood factory in Lincoln, north of Warsaw, Potterfield acquired Bishop. But demand failed to sustain his new stock-making venture; it closed in 1998.

Prices for walnut have tracked dwindling supplies. A decade ago, gun-maker Roger Biesen, heir to the shop that under his father Al had supplied writer Jack O’Connor with his most favored rifles, fumed that he’d just paid $2,250 for a stick of figured French walnut. “A blank!” he growled. “That’s as much as we used to charge for a finished rifle!” Now even ordinary walnut is expensive. Cheaper woods, mostly birch and beech, have supplanted it on

entry-level rifles. Laminated stocks are stronger and more stable, but heavier. Another option: stocks with attractive walnut slabs either side of laminated cores.

Installing an after-market stock or whittling one from U.S.-sourced wood costs much less than having an ace stocker bring his talents to thin-shelled European walnut. Boyds Custom Gunstocks, near Mitchell, South Dakota, helps with DIY projects. Fifty-odd years ago, young Randy Boyd swapped an ailing Plymouth for two Mauser rifles, which he prettied up and peddled. He bought a two-spindle stock duplicator for his shop, “a grainery whose wood stove barely thawed the walls in winter.” Three high-volume duplicators helped furnish 100 stocks a week for Rogue Rifle Co., maker of Chipmunk .22s. CNC machines followed. Now run by Justin Knutson and his crew in a 50,000-square-foot plant, Boyds sells precisely machined drop-in stocks, solid and laminated, fully and semi-finished, checkered and not, in a host of styles for nearly every rifle and shotgun you can name.

Instead of replacing wood stocks, you can revive them,

stripping the finish, mending minor flaws, and freshening details. I’ve fitted and checkered plugs in chipped forends, repaired tang splits, replaced tired recoil pads. So tended and given a rich oil finish, a dowdy stock can look and perform “like new.”

A caveat: Revival and restoration differ. Restoring an old Packard, automobile buffs don’t slap on a set of alloy wheels, however attractive. Only original parts or true-to-spec replacements will do. A rifle altered in form, finish, or components is not restored. Call it revived or resurrected, renovated or renewed. A few shops, notably Turnbull Restoration, specialize in restoring firearms, from re-stocking to re-cutting inscriptions in steel and matching original blue. Turnbull gussies up guns, old and new, with nitre-blued screws and furniture, case-colored frames, special sights.

Your first step in making a tired gun look better is to resolve, like a surgeon before operating, to do no harm. Historically significant arms are usually best left alone. Rare guns, too. Of 581,471 Model 70 Winchesters built before the rifle’s 1963 overhaul, just 362 were in .300 Savage. These now fetch lofty prices. Re-bluing one or re-finishing its stock would drain a pile of coin from its trade value.

On ordinary rifles, a battered, weathered stock can get a big cosmetic boost from re-finishing. No special talents required—only the discipline to pause often. Wood removed is forever gone. Metalwork, unless you’re a machinist, is best left to pros. A re-blue merits careful

Turnbull Restoration brought this Winchester 1892 Deluxe Takedown to life. The checkering, case coloring, and bluing are masterfully done.

thought. Modest blue wear is often preferable to shiny new finish that’s clearly not original. Even in reputable shops, buffing before bluing often dishes screw holes, dulls edges, and leave waves in flats. There’s no fix to such sacrilege!

The wrist on this Winchester 1892 is chipped and worn smooth. The steel retains little blue. Restoration will be costly. To some enthusiasts, the rifle is most valuable as is.

Oil finishes lend themselves to stock revival. This “oil” is not petroleum-based gun oil. It comes from plants. Tung oil (from the pressed seeds of tung tree nuts) and linseed oil dry, cure, or polymerize in air. To speed drying, you’ll want boiled linseed oil, not raw. Commercial oil finishes, like George Bros. (GB) LinSpeed and Birchwood Casey’s Tru-Oil, dry faster still. Curt Crum, who for decades finished the stunning walnut on David Miller’s custom rifles, used Daly’s Teak Oil over water-thin sealer.

Finishes on production-line stocks can be hard to match, not because they’re better than you can apply but because they’re developed to save time and labor and adjusted to use available ingredients. The first Model 70 stocks had a clear lacquer finish over stain and filler. Carnauba wax in these lacquers gave the result a warm glow.

Stick shellac repaired flaws. Unlike shellac (whose Sanskrit root referencing tree or beetle secretions informs both words), water-repellent lacquers cure without imparting an amber color. When WW II drained supplies of carnauba wax, harder lacquers replaced it in civilian industry.

Natural oil finishes respond to chemical strippers you’ll use to

STOCK DOESN’T FIT?

A Pachmayr recoil pad was once the fix for short stocks, though curved butts had to be sawed or belt-sanded flat and square. Shaping the pad in place often damaged the adjacent wood finish.

Slip-on rubber pads were unsightly, and none fit perfectly. Now, there’s a better option. Galco’s butt sleeve of dark, Havana-brown leather comes in five sizes. A flap, secured by Velcro, adjusts the fit for a snug, clean appearance. It looks classy on the most expensive rifles! In my opinion, there’s no better way to add 3/4-inch to stock length. Need more? Insert a spacer before you push the sleeve in place.

If your non-adjustable stock is too long, consider getting another stock. Chances are, you’ll find a cheap moldedpolymer stock to chop to length or a wood stock of proper length from Boyds. Keep saws away from that original stock!

prep a stock for refinishing. Thick “goopy” strippers slathered on cling to the wood. After letting it curdle for 15 minutes, use steel wool or, on flat surfaces, a metal scraper to sweep away loosened finish. Mind wood-grain direction as you scrub stubborn and recessed patches. Apply stripper to checkering with a toothbrush; then brush out the loose finish, let the checkering dry, then mask it. Keep stripper off metal, rubber, and plastics.

Once old finish is removed, you’re ready to lift dents. Cover each with a wet washcloth and apply a hot iron. Steam will lift compressed wood fibers. As the block-sanding required to level a deep dent can remove a lot of wood, you might best steam out what you can and leave what remains as “character.”

A chip or a notch cut for a receiver sight begs a patch. Clean up edges with a knife or a fine file, then shape a wood patch of similar color and grain for a tight fit. Glue it in and sand to the surface.

Flint is the oldest abrasive glued to paper and possibly inspired the word “sandpaper.” It’s still the cheapest option. Garnet paper has sharper cutting edges and lasts longer. Aluminum oxide is also sharp and durable. Blue-black silicon carbide has the

keenest edges of common abrasives. Used mainly on soft metals and leather, it is very hard and brittle. Emery’s rounded crystals cut slowly; they excel at polishing.

Coarse to fine, sandpaper grit is numbered. Traditional digits—0, 2/0, 3/0, etc.—have given way to grit designations from 16 to 600 and higher, representing counts of sieve openings. While ordinary paper backing is adequate for most block-sanding, cloth-backed abrasives work better in tight places and on curves. Choose sanding grit just coarse enough to get desired results. Unless removing lots of wood or re-shaping, stay with 220 or finer. Remember, you must remove all sanding marks with the next grade of abrasive! Ditto for steel wool, which still goes by the “ought” system: 0 for coarse to 0000 for extra-fine.

As sanding blocks, art-gum and hard rubber erasers help keep flat surfaces flat and edges sharp. Without a block, finger pressure leaves surface ripples. Paper creeps over edges, rounding them. Edges should actually become sharper as you block-sand. Just before applying new finish, they can be blunted slightly with fine paper. I use 1/2-, 3/4- and 1-inch dowels as blocks for sanding curved surfaces, such as comb flutes and under the grip cap. There, 000 steel wool can substitute for emery paper.

Sand in a well-lighted place. Sunlight is best! Examine the stock often. You’ll want to find and erase scratches before they appear under new finish. Leave the wood abutting metal for last. Finished, it should stand slightly proud of the steel. To ensure against blunting or removing too much wood at these junctures, I limit sanding there to a few swipes with blocked wet-or-dry emery paper, 400 then 600 grit.

Having eliminated all sanding and steel wool marks, dust the

Wayne fitted this striking laminated Boyds stock to a LAW rifle in .340 Weatherby.

stock with a tack rag. You may find tiny scratches. A thin coat of boiled linseed oil, immediately wiped off, can also reveal them.

Except to match the original look of stained wood, I don’t use stain, preferring natural color, even on maple. Also, stain can turn out blotchy, as open-pored parts of the stock absorb it more readily than do hard sections. There’s no easy fix for blotches. Trying to remove stain is a Sisyphean challenge. Next step: filling pores. Miles Gilbert stock re-finishing kits include an excellent filler. But I’ve often used spar varnish. Thicker than most oils, it still penetrates. It dries fast and all but water-proofs the wood. Porous wood may require multiple coats. Cut dried buildup between them with sandpaper or steel wool. When pores shine at the surface, I polish the stock with fine steel wool.

Before applying finish (or filler), suspend a coat-hanger, hook down, to snare the magazine well. You’ll want the stock hanging to dry. I rub in boiled linseed oil vigorously by hand until the wood doesn’t want any more, and continue rubbing until the oil gets hot under the friction of my hand. Thinning with turpentine helps oil penetrate. Let the stock hang until that first coat has been absorbed and the wood is dry to the touch. Then hand-rub in more finish until it’s hot, polish off any excess with a cloth and let dry. Over the next weeks, add finish in thin coats, ensuring each is dry before applying the next. Dry time may increase. The secret of a fine oil finish is microscopically thin coats thoroughly cured! If the finish gums up, you must start over. I usually allow at least a month for finishing after pore-sealing. Most of that is drying time—and I live in an arid, high-desert climate. One ace stocker gave a deserving stick of French walnut 25 coats!

ABOVE: This stock has been stripped for re-finishing with a commercial kit. Note the wide range of sandpaper.

RIGHT: Commercial filler (here) may double as a finish–or be taken down to the wood and oil applied over it. BOTTOM: Use a toothbrush with paintstripper to get old finish out of checkering. Then mask it. As a last step in finishing, unmask the checkering, then brush in boiled linseed oil to match the new finish and repel water.

When satisfied with the look of the stock, unmask the checkering. Douse it with boiled linseed oil and scrub that in with a toothbrush. Wipe off spatter with a cloth. Brush and wipe until the checkering and surrounding wood are dry. One or two coats in checkering should color it like the rest of the wood. Too much oil will make checkering dark.

If examining a near-dry stock, you see a rough spot or the start of a gummy patch, rub in a slurry of rottenstone and boiled linseed oil to feather the flaw into surrounding finish. Buff, rub in fresh oil until it’s hot, let dry and buff again. Do this periodically to refresh oil finish, especially after the rifle has been exposed to wet weather. This refresher is best not done with faster-drying oils. n

RESTORING AN AMERICAN ICON

Bison are symbols of the American West, and market hunting nearly wiped them from the planet. The story of their near-extinction and then of their restoration thanks to members of the Boone and Crockett Club is the story of the first animal reintroduction in North America.

When at ease, their undulating herds washed over the landscape like a soft breeze. When spooked, their hooves shook the earth to its core. Prior to the 1700s, waves of bison roamed from Mexico to the Northwest Territories and from eastern Oregon nearly to the Atlantic coast of Georgia. And once the West was “opened” by railroads, they were sitting ducks—all 30 to 60 million of them.

They were killed for their hides, tongues, meat, and for fun. Destroying the bison also destroyed the lifeblood of Native Americans. Market hunters could get three dollars for a buffalo skin in Kansas. A full buffalo-hide coat would fetch up to $50. Railcars made shipping the heavy hides back East easy. The scale of the slaughter was exponential, thanks to new and ever-improving rifles.

By the late 1800s, only a few small herds of bison remained in North America, and many of them were privately held. Herds in Yellowstone had dwindled to less than two dozen. Americans had heard stories of bison across the Great Plains, yet few had ever actually seen a live one. That would change when early Boone and Crockett Club member William T. Hornaday decided to make it his life’s work to ensure that bison would not be lost forever.

HORNADAY’S CRUSADE

William Temple Hornaday was a pioneer on numerous fronts, and his name has become synonymous with conservation. He campaigned against the destruction of wild game and sought protection for species on the brink of extinction. Hornaday was also a collector. While working as a taxidermist for the Smithsonian, he traveled to Montana in the spring of 1886 to collect bison specimens for the museum. He found nothing but the bleached bones of his quarry. Three months later he returned and collected his bison. The irony of tracking down the last remaining bison just to kill them and put them in a museum wasn’t lost on Hornaday. In Mr. Hornaday’s War, Stefan Bechtel writes, “In his autobiography, written forty-eight years after these events had faded into memory, Hornaday acknowledged his own misgivings over what the museum

PJ DELHOMME

party was about to do—and begged the forgiveness of future generations for what could arguably be called a crime.”

That expedition to collect specimens had other consequences. Hornaday brought to Washington D.C. a bison calf, which he tied outside the National Museum. It died a few weeks later. He later skinned and stuffed it, adding it to the bison exhibit in the museum. Even though the calf’s visit to D.C. was shortlived, it gave Hornaday an idea. He would work to preserve live animals and not just the dead ones inside a museum.

After becoming head of the National Zoo in Washington D.C. in 1889, Hornaday left that post for New York City where he became the director of the Bronx Zoo for three decades. There, he placed a small herd of bison inside a 20-acre enclosure, and it became one of the most popular exhibits.

As early as 1887, Hornaday had spoken with Boone and Crockett Club co-founder Theodore Roosevelt about

restoring bison to some of their old haunts in the West. And yet, both men were so busy—Hornaday running the zoo and T.R. achieving his political goals—that the restoration idea never gained traction. That is until a young naturalist, who happened to be enamored with bison, began lecturing on the idea of restoring the herds.

BISON RETURNED

Ernest Baynes presented a lecture on bison preservation and reservations in Boston in January 1905. In the audience was influential Boone and Crockett Club member T. Gilbert Pearson, who suggested Baynes bring his passion for bison and lecture to the New York Zoological Society, which managed the New York Zoological Park (a.k.a. Bronx Zoo). Baynes had written to President Roosevelt about restoring bison, and Roosevelt responded enthusiastically, which is why he accepted the invitation to be the first president of a new organization dedicated to restoring bison herds. It would be called

The Impact Series is dedicated to showing how sportsmen, members of the Boone and Crockett Club in particular, saved the wildlife and wild places of the United States. Early members of the Boone and Crockett Club comprised the movers, shakers, and initiators of the American conservation movement. They were hunters, anglers, explorers, lawmakers, soldiers, and, above all, conservationists. These members established laws that allowed our wildlife resources to flourish. They also protected landscape-scale geologic marvels and American icons like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Denali, and many, many more. These members may no longer be with us, but their legacy remains. This series aims to honor their accomplishments and remind us of the good work still to do.

The Chronic Incompletion of Bighorn Sheep Restoration

Squeezed by disease events, water scarcity, and agency commitment, wild sheep recovery remains a work in progress.

Owing to their highelevation haunts and habit of staying well away from the more disruptive tendencies of humans, bighorn sheep were fairly insulated from our first continental wildlife reckoning.

As deer, elk, wild turkeys, pronghorns, and a whole menagerie of birds got caught in the thresher of American progress, bighorn rams were relatively unaffected by farms, factories, and the firearms of market hunters. The exceptions that paid the price in extinction were our lowland sheep, the Audubon subspecies of the lower Missouri and Yellowstone rivers that fed the crews and woodhawks of the steamboat era.

In the high country, mountain men whittled at Rocky Mountain bighorns, while across the Southwest, Native tribes built cultures and cuisines around the horns and meat of desert sheep. The remote habitat of these species shielded them from the industrial-scale losses that decimated their river-dwelling brethren.

When the most virulent influence of humans’ intrusion arrived in bighorn country in the middle years of the last century, it was hard to see at first. It still is. It’s a microscopic pathogen, carried by Old World domestic sheep, goats, and even llamas that New World wild sheep have no natural immunity to fight. Wild sheep that contact domestic livestock often contract what in humans might be considered the barnyard equivalent of the common cold. But with no ability to fight it, that sniffle in bighorns becomes highly contagious pneumonia that becomes fatal respiratory failure in a staggering number of wild sheep from British Columbia to Sonora—and every American state in between.

The effects of Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (better known as M. ovi ) often deliver an ignominious end to an animal that represents the austere purity of wild country. In a perverse way, the microorganism has kept Kevin Hurley in business. The vice president of conservation for the Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF) and former biggame biologist for Wyoming’s Game & Fish Department, Hurley credits M. ovi with keeping bighorn sheep

Wild Sheep Foundation matched a $30,000 grant from Spanish gunmaker Bergara to help fund a special guzzler project in the Muddy Mountains in Nevada. The remote location required helicopter transport of all tools, equipment, materials, and manpower to complete the guzzlers. The structure itself has a 100’ X 150’ apron that captures and directs water to eight 2,300-gallon tanks.

DAWN OF THE SHEEP PEOPLE

In the early 1970s, a group of devoted sheep hunters began to discuss the future of wild sheep in North America. They organized a conference at the University of Montana, and it was co-sponsored by the Boone and Crockett Club, National Audubon Society, and Wildlife Management Institute. Boone and Crockett Club members

John H. Batten and Dr. Valerius Geist were among those presenting. That landmark meeting of 77 hunters, wildlife managers, and biologists spawned two important milestones.

The first was a 300-page book, The Wild Sheep in Modern North America, that would serve as a starting point and baseline for their future sheep restoration efforts. The other outcome of the meeting was the eventual formation of the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (FNAWS) in 1977. Early presidents of the organization included Club members Dr. James H. Duke Jr. and Daniel Pedrotti. In 2008, FNAWS formally changed its name to the Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF).

restoration an energetic presentand future-tense challenge. In 2024, WSF raised and directed over $11 million for wild sheep conservation, adding to some $145 million the organization has generated and put into wild sheep conservation in its lifetime. While much of that private-sector investment has gone toward expanding suitable habitat and herds, a sizable percentage is devoted to restoring sheep in places where disease has wiped them out, sometimes repeatedly, over the past 50 years. Over the past century, an estimated 22,000 wild sheep have been transplanted in some 1,500 operations.

“Every once in a while, I wonder: Are we better off now than when the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep [the precursor for WSF] started in 1977?” asks Hurley to no one and to everyone. “If your metric is hunting opportunity, then undoubtedly we have been successful. We are raising the sea level. If your metric is more sheep on the mountain, then I think the jury is out.”

Have we recovered wild sheep? Hurley’s simple answer is no. His more complicated answer

illuminates the nuances of managing wildlife in a climate of scarcity, as opposed to the abundance that defines our management of whitetail deer, Canada geese, and elk in many places. The habitat-limited populations of sheep grow slowly and with frequent setbacks. Add climate change, human encroachment, and the wild card of disease ecology and you can appreciate Hurley’s job security.

A SLIDING DEFINITION OF HABITAT

Disease devastates wild sheep, but it has a cascading effect on wildlife managers who invest limited agency resources in building wild sheep populations only to see them crash for reasons beyond their control. The risk of disease, along with drought, human development, and habitat constraints, have caused Hurley to narrow his field of view.

“As conservationists, we often measure our success by filling the historic range” of wildlife species, he says. “But with wild sheep, I look at historic range and suitable range, and they’re not always—or even often—the same. There’s a lot of historic range that

“But with wild sheep, I look at historic range and suitable range, and they’re not always—or even often—the same. There’s a lot of historic range that can never be reoccupied because it’s no longer suitable.”

Kevin Hurley - Wild Sheep Foundation Vice President of Conservation

Kevin Hurley assisted during the translocation from Elephant Mountain to Franklin Mountains State Park in Texas.

can never be reoccupied because it’s no longer suitable.”

Hurley points to the basinand-range habitat around fast-growing Las Vegas, Nevada, or the interstate-bisected sky-island mountain ranges of southern California, both of which are historic desert bighorn sheep habitat. In those cases, the habitat is so compromised by wildlife-limiting infrastructure that bighorn restoration is out of the question. It’s historic range, but not suitable range.

“Any time someone wants to put sheep in a place, the first question I have is, ‘Were they there historically?’ Second, I ask, ‘Why did they go away?’ and third, I ask, ‘Is the habitat still suitable?’ If I get three affirmative answers then we’re on our way to sheep restoration. But if not, then we take a step back and look at what has changed.”

COMPLEXITIES OF MODERN WILDLIFE RESTORATION

The pioneers of wildlife restoration overcame daunting challenges. The science of wildlife management hadn’t yet been invented, so species conservation tended toward either preservation or domestication, with as much time spent in capitol buildings and boardrooms seeking political wins as in the field. When the next generation of conservationists hit its stride, with trap-and-translocation operations planting animals in vacant habitat, missions had the singular purpose and muscularity of a military campaign.

Restoring bighorns depleted by disease combines aspects of both these earlier restoration eras. Intensive monitoring is so intrusive— with capture, testing, marking, and retesting—that it can resemble animal husbandry. Politics, especially convincing decision-makers to invest in sheep restoration, is a big part of contemporary

In December of 2024, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Bighorn Society, and the Wild Sheep Foundation partnered to establish a new population of bighorn in Franklin Mountains State Park. Read more about bighorn sheep restoration in Texas on page 58.

conservation. And the conventional response to a catastrophic disease outbreak is repopulation, which involves the same muscular catch-and-release operations of a previous generation.

But overlaying all that intensity is a hanging question that never bothered early wildlife restorers: Is it worth it?

“Wild sheep management isn’t linear,” says Keith Balfourd, WSF’s director of communications. “In some jurisdictions populations are stable, in others increasing, and in others decreasing. Data suggest that in the 1950s and ‘60s, desert and Rocky Mountain bighorns together amounted to about 25,000 animals. Now we’re pushing 90,000. But it hasn’t been a steady increase. Instead, some years we’re up, other years we’re down, but the trend is positive.”

But Balfourd notes that sheep populations are small everywhere, which is why each additional hunting opportunity is proportionately bigger than for other species. This dynamic is at the root of WSF’s

novel and sometimes controversial approach to restoration. Because wild sheep conservation is expensive and uncertain, many state agencies are reluctant to dedicate revenue to their welfare. But the Wild Sheep Foundation has cracked the code on earmarked revenue generation.

By convincing decision-makers—by turns governors, agency directors, or fish-and-game commissioners—to donate special hunting licenses to WSF to auction to the highest bidder, the organization has raised and directed millions of dollars for wild-sheep conservation that has, in turn, created more opportunity for hunters to draw one of the few but increasing public tags.

The arrangement is controversial because it awards rarified hunting opportunities to those with the means to pay. But because auction-tag revenue is reinvested in wild-sheep habitat and management, restoration success generally results in more tags for anyone to draw.

After New Mexico’s Department of Game and Fish invested staff and resources in bighorn management, wild sheep there “went from state listed as threatened to downlisted to delisted, with two full-time sheep biologists and a herd of about 800,” notes Hurley. Now that New Mexico’s sheep herd is pushing 2,600 animals, the state issues more hunting opportunities than ever. Earlier this year, WSF auctioned New Mexico’s statewide Rocky Mountain bighorn tag for a record $1.3 million.

“That money will be plowed back into the sheep program to create even more hunting opportunity,” says Hurley, “but it’s also validation that intentional sheep conservation has real value.”

LIMITING FACTORS

Back in reflective mode, Hurley and Balfourd look across landscapes at impediments to bighorn recovery

or factors that make restoration hard or impossible.

“When I look at what’s different for desert sheep versus what Rocky Mountain bighorn need, it’s water,” says Balfourd. “Conservation of desert sheep almost always comes down to a pretty basic truth: No water, no sheep.”

Installing and maintaining guzzlers, which collect and hold water in arid environments, have sustained desert sheep in historic range where natural water sources are scarce and getting scarcer.

Keeping wild sheep away from pneumonia-transmitting domestic sheep and goats is an ongoing challenge in both mountain and desert habitat, says Hurley, who returns to his historic-versus-suitable-habitat differentiation. Wild Sheep Foundation has mapped a 14-mile circle around vacant bighorn habitats. If a domestic sheep-and-goat

Keith Balfourd, pictured below at phase 1 of construction on the Muddy Mountains guzzler project in Nevada, said this undertaking is the largest guzzler ever built for water collection and distribution in Nevada’s history. In addition to receiving funding from WSF and Bergara, the project also received funding from the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), WSF affiliates, Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, Nevada Bighorn Unlimited-Fallon, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited-Reno, and Meadow Valley Wildlife Unlimited.

operation is inside that 14-mile radius, then WSF no longer considers that suitable habitat.

“We have mapped pretty much all the available bighorn habitat across the West,” Hurley says. “And there’s some pretty choice habitat that is both historic and which would be available if not for the presence of domestic sheep and goats, either production flocks or what we call hobby farms—those people who live on 10 acres out of town and have 5-10 sheep and goats for meat or wool or just because they like the idea of small-scale farming. The problem for wildlife managers is that you could put sheep on the mountain, but in the winter they’re coming down near those hobby farms. And all of a sudden, what looked like choice, available habitat is no longer suitable habitat” because of the vector of disease transmission.

One response to managing in

a disease-prone environment is to flood the zone with sheep, putting bighorns in all available habitat as a buffer in case a single herd succumbs to M. ovi . That strategy requires constant monitoring and frequent supplemental translocations, but until (if ever) a vaccine for M. ovi in wild sheep is developed, it keeps wildlife managers one step ahead of the disease. Hurley says the strategy may ultimately save one of the original source herds for North American bighorns.

“California bighorns [a subspecies of desert sheep] came to the United States in 1954 from the Junction herd at Williams Lake, British Columbia,” Hurley says. “The first translocation was Steens Mountain in Oregon. Seven states now have California bighorns that descended from that B.C. source.

“But the Junction herd is struggling, and there’s talk that some of these American herds are doing well enough that, 70 years later, they may be able to repatriate the Junction herd. That’s the challenge, but it’s also the promise of wild-sheep restoration. You lose a few, you gain a few, but over time, you are building herds and hunting opportunities and putting more sheep on the mountain.” n

PUBLIC POLICY OF WILD SHEEP CONSERVATION

Wild sheep conservation requires timely and directed public policy to grow bighorn herds throughout North America. Reducing competition from feral horses, considering bighorns’ seasonal habitat requirements in agency land-use planning, and researching disease ecology all bear on wild sheep restoration.

In Nevada, with the highest population of desert bighorn sheep of any jurisdiction in either America or Mexico, feral horses and burros are outcompeting native wildlife for water and forage. The Wild Sheep Foundation and Boone and Crockett Club advocate for active federal management of these grass-eating, wetland-damaging invasive ungulates, employing strategies such as adoption, sterilization, and agency-led removal to reduce their numbers. Both conservation organizations call on Congress to fund the $66 million modernization of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin. The center is the nation’s only facility dedicated exclusively to the detection, control, and prevention of wildlife diseases. While its most urgent efforts focus on avian influenza and chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, a top priority is also understanding and preventing the transmission of M. Ovi pathogens between domestic and wild sheep.

“When I look at what’s different for desert sheep versus what Rocky Mountain bighorn need, it’s water. Conservation of desert sheep almost always comes down to a pretty basic truth: No water, no sheep.”

Keith Balfourd - Wild Sheep Foundation Director of Communications

Similarly, both groups are pushing the establishment of the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act, which would add wild sheep to big-game species included in provisions of Secretarial Order 3362, the so-called Migration Order issued by then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in President Trump’s first administration.

Because wild sheep both migrate seasonally and also foray in designated “movement areas,” the bills would establish conservation priorities for key migration routes and foray areas to minimize contact with domestic sheep and goats.

WILDLIFE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, VOLUME VII

Wildlife for the 21st Century, Volume VII is the culmination of more than a year of work by the AWCP and will define the sporting community’s priorities for the next four years. The recommendations act as a blueprint for decision makers to lead policy changes that will make a meaningful difference to ensure our country’s unique outdoor heritage remains and thrives for years to come.

One recommendation highlights private land conservation and incentivizing private land owners to provide quality wildlife habitat.

More than two-thirds of the U.S. land area–893 million acres–is privately owned by two million farmers, ranchers, and landowners, and an additional 10.6 million Americans own nearly half a billion acres of private forestland. Private land conservation policy focuses on voluntary, incentive-based programs to enhance wildlife habitat and promote markets for sustainably managed agriculture and forest products.

These programs ensure that landowners are compensated for their efforts to address wildlife habitat needs and other ecological concerns while improving their bottom line and the overall quality of their property.

REAUTHORIZE AND ENHANCE FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

n Fully fund and implement conservation programs authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334), and its successors, that encourage landowner participation in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPAHIP), and other Conservation Title programs.

n Continue and expand the “Working Lands for Wildlife” partnership from the 2018 Farm Bill to conserve habitats for at-risk species on agricultural land and provide producers regulatory certainty.

n Ensure that vegetation planted as part of Farm Bill conservation programs is consistent with the purpose of the program, by encouraging native vegetation use where practicable.

n Eliminate Adjusted Gross Income restrictions to foster landscape-scale conservation, the creation and enhancement of migration corridors, carbon sequestration, at-risk species conservation, wetlands restoration and protection, and increase USDA program efficiency.

READ ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Farm Bill is the largest single source of funding for conservation efforts on private lands, with the current Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 dedicating approximately $6 billion in annual funding. USDA must implement all authorized programs to realize intended benefits.

The CRP should be enhanced to ensure that vegetation planted and managed on enrolled land is consistent with the congressional intent of the program. Likewise, financial assistance programs like EQIP and CSP are also essential to encourage wildlife conservation benefits. Working Lands for Wildlife adds regulatory certainty for Farm Bill conservation program participants.

Easement programs, like ACEP, which includes Wetland Reserve Easements (WRE) and Agricultural Land Easements (ALE), and the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) or its potential successor in the form of the Forest Conservation Easement Program (FCEP), benefit wetland, upland, and woodland wildlife and promote long-term stewardship of private lands. We urge the USDA to maximize public investment in ACEP, including maintaining historical allocations for ALE and WRE, while prioritizing easements that meaningfully advance wildlife conservation.

The VPA-HIP provides block grants to state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies to fund hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational access and habitat improvement programs on private lands. The RCPP leverages private dollars to maximize federal investment in conservation projects. We urge the USDA to continue supporting these successful and popular programs.

SUPPORT WETLAND AND GRASSLAND ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION

n Congress and the administration should reaffirm a national no-net-loss of wetlands policy objective while taking specific actions to protect and enhance remaining wetlands and streams.

n Congress and the administration should prioritize national grassland conservation goals that complement those enacted for wetlands.

To address the loss of wetlands, each administration since the 1970s has endorsed a national wetlands conservation goal. Further recognizing the value wetlands provide, the administration should proactively establish a net gain of wetlands policy to protect and enhance the functions and values of wetlands and the ecosystem services they provide. Voluntary and incentive-based programs for wetlands restoration, management, and protection, including support for Farm Bill conservation programs and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), should be pursued vigorously to sustain conservation and water quality in North America.

Given the increased recognition of the roles that our nation’s grasslands play in providing critical wildlife habitat while addressing ecological challenges, national grassland conservation goals that complement

those enacted for wetlands are warranted. Specifically, Congress and the administration should prioritize resources to enhance and conserve the nation’s remaining wetlands and grasslands while generating ecosystem service benefits. Farm Bill provisions such as conservation compliance and Sodsaver ensure that federal farm policy voluntarily precludes wetland drainage or conversion of native grasslands. Under this direction, landowners must conserve wetland and grassland habitats on their land to be eligible for federal farm programs. These practices must be maintained to ensure that agricultural production does not work at cross-purposes to basic conservation standards that have been a normal part of farming and ranching operations for decades.

UTILIZE EASEMENTS TO CONSERVE IMPORTANT HABITAT

n Reaffirm the federal government’s commitment to supporting land and habitat protection through conservation easements that keep existing wetlands, grasslands, and forests in conservation uses.

n Replace the HFRP with the proposed FCEP, bringing parity to forest landowners within the Farm Bill.

The sale or donation of easements preserves agricultural landscapes, helps producers keep their working lands working, and conserves wetland, grassland, and woodland habitats. Easements available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, funded through purchases of federal Duck Stamps have been the backbone of habitat conservation in the Prairie Pothole Region and other core habitats for nearly sixty years. We encourage the administration and Congress to reaffirm the importance of these tools that conserve and protect the public benefits of these landscapes for future generations to enjoy.

VIRGINIA ELK REVIVAL

HOW A FATHER-SON DUO MADE HISTORY

In anticipation of the 32nd Big Game Awards, we are highlighting some of the entries from the recent awards period.

Austin Prieskorn’s non-typical American elk will be on display in the Generation Next exhibit for the 32nd Big Game Awards in Springfield, Missouri, at Johhny Morris’ Wonders Of Wildlife National Museum & Aquarium.

See more photos of trophies that will be on display on page 66. SAVE THE DATE!

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU IN SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI JULY 24-26, 2025

A raffle ticket earns a young hunter (and his dad) the chance to chase elk in Virginia. A historic hunt ensues, ending with a big bull and bigger memories.

Bo Prieskorn was hunting pronghorn with his sons in New Mexico when his phone rang. He didn’t recognize the number but answered anyway. On the line was Chris Croy, the regional director of Virginia and the Carolinas with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF). Croy asked Prieskorn if he wanted to go elk hunting in Virginia. Bo turned to his 15-year-old son Austin who was right next to him, and asked him the very same question.

Months earlier, Bo had bought a handful of raffle tickets to support conservation efforts on behalf of elk in Virginia. He thought he might win a rifle or some binoculars. Little did he know that he and Austin would participate in an elk hunt a decade in the making. And there was no way for him to know that his 15-year-old son would shoot a bull that scored 413-7/8 to put him at the top spot for Virginia elk. In fact, Austin’s bull is the only bull in Boone and Crockett Club’s records book from Virginia, but thanks to current restoration and conservation efforts, it certainly will not be the last.

RETURN OF ELK TO VIRGINIA

Before the 1600s, elk inhabited Virginia, mainly west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. As settlers pushed west, the elk population declined. Then in 1855, Colonel G. Tuley killed the last known elk in Virginia. Beginning in 2012, Virginia’s Department of Wildlife Resources began a multi-year project to restore elk to three southwest Virginia counties in an area known as the Elk Restoration Zone. With help from The Nature Conservancy, RMEF, Southwest Virginia Sportsmen, other groups, and private landowners, the elk thrived on reclaimed coal mine land.

From 2012-2014, biologists relocated 75 elk from Kentucky to Buchanan County. By 2020, DWR estimated more than 250 elk in Virginia’s herd. In 2022, on the 10th anniversary of the reintroduction, the state implemented an elk hunt, issuing six tags, with one conservation tag issued to RMEF. Of the five lottery-style tags administered by DWR, four of the winners had to be Virginia residents.

With nearly 32,000 applicants, the state elk tag lottery generated $513,000 for DWR’s general fund. Residents paid $15 each for a chance, while nonresidents paid $20. The RMEF lottery tag generated $93,000, which will go toward improving elk habitat within the elk management zone. In 2023, there were more than 24,400 applicants, and nearly 20,000 in 2024.

When Bo learned that he’d won, there was no question that he wanted Austin to hunt. “I haven’t hunted myself in seven years,” Bo says. “It’s been all about my boys.”

A FATHER AND SON HUNT

The Prieskorn family lives in New Mexico, and they’re no strangers to hunting. Bo was an outfitter for 30 years. After selling his business, he now spends his time on wildlife

photography and taking his boys, Austin and Mason, hunting around the western U.S. Hunting elk east of the Mississippi River was going to be something completely new.

In September 2022, Bo drove to Virginia from New Mexico to scout and take photos before the October hunt. During that scouting session, Bo found a monster bull that looked like it would score 450. “He was so old, he could barely hold up his antlers,” Bo says. He never saw that bull again.

When October hit, Austin and Bo drove 35 hours back to Grundy, Virginia, in time for an orientation dinner before opening day. There, they met a landowner who mentioned a big 8x9 bull hanging around his place. With little public land, having landowner buy-in for elk and elk hunting has been a key component in the reintroduction process, says RMEF’s Croy. “We would have no elk, and there would be no hunt without the private landowners. They are 100 percent to be commended for helping make this hunt happen,” he says.

After dinner, they went to see if they could find the bull. As the sun was setting, they spotted a massive skylined bull. The next day, they met with the landowner, who

showed them around, and that evening, the bull was right where he had been the day before.

The night before opening day, Bo asked Austin if he would consider holding out for a big, mature bull. “The answer to that was no,” Austin says. “I just wanted to shoot any bull.” While he’s applied for elk tags in his home state of New Mexico and drawn tags for cows, he’s never drawn a bull tag. This would be Austin’s first shot at a bull elk.

THE BLINK OF AN EYE

In the morning, they walked to the top of the mountain, and the woods were dead silent. A mile away, Austin glassed some bulls. Bo belted out a bugle, then a cow call. The mountain lit up with elk. The bull they were after had a very distinct bugle, and Bo told Austin they might have a chance at him.

After decades of guiding and outfitting, Bo knows how to speak elk. Using his calls, he pulled the herd of 30 cows toward them from a mile away. In the very back was the bull of a lifetime. The men moved to a better vantage point, and Austin spotted him again. Taking his time, he put his 30 Nosler on a set of shooting sticks, settled the crosshairs, and connected at

Austin’s dad, Bo Prieskorn, took this photo on a September scouting trip.

160 yards. Austin filled the tag in 90 minutes. “It was over too quick,” Austin admits. “My dad picked up the casing, and I told him that I was going to keep this forever.”

“I have a lot of experience, and I stayed relatively calm,” Bo says. “But I can tell you that when that bull fell, I lost it. And when Austin put his hands on that elk, tears came out from both of us.”

DWR biologists want to gather as much data as possible on these elk, which means they didn’t field dress the bull. Instead, the landowner and local volunteers helped haul out the entire elk, transporting it to a check station. By then, word had spread about Austin’s bull. “We were a little nervous being from New Mexico and shooting the state record,” Bo says. “We didn’t know how everyone was going to react.”

Of the six bulls killed, Austin’s was, by far, the largest. “People

Austin with the new state record non-typical American elk that he harvested during the 2022 season. The bull has a final B&C score of 413-7/8 points.

came from all over different counties to shake Austin’s hand,” Bo says. “Everywhere we went in town, people knew who Austin was.”

“I just want to say how the people there were super nice and genuine,” Austin adds.

ELK BELONG IN VIRGINIA

Austin will have a hard time beating his Virginia record, but he’s okay with that. Is he done elk hunting? He answers with a resounding, “No way.” Where does he plan on hunting elk next year? “Anywhere,” he says.

Since Austin’s record-breaking bull, interest in Virginia’s elk hunt has remained steady. “That 413 bull was the best advertising the state of Virginia ever had,” Croy says. Perhaps the biggest thing going for Eastern elk is the people who live there. Not only are they genuinely happy to see a 15-yearold out-of-state hunter kill the state

record, but they also love elk. “The people in that part of Appalachia have adopted these elk as their own,” Croy says. “They have volunteered so many hours to restore wild, free-ranging elk there. I mean, you can’t believe it. It was just meant to be.” n

Heritage 100 Series

Aluminum pommel and Guard

Aluminum pommel and guard provide a lightweight construction with durability.

Dymalux cocobolo handle

The DymaLux cocobolo handle is water resistant, has superior toughness, and provides a secure grip with lasting quality.

leather

basspro.com

PREMIUM STRINGS AND CABLES

INTELLIGENT TINKERING:

THE SCIENCE BEHIND SPECIES AND HABITAT RESTORATION

If only we had paid better attention to these wise words from Club Member Aldo Leopold over the years! Unfortunately, the history of wildlife conservation is replete with stories of wanton destruction, over-exploitation, and unregulated harvest, leading to the diminution and even extinction of whole populations and species.

At first, these losses were confined to small populations or island species such as the great auk, the dodo, Santa Fe Island tortoises, and numerous Hawaiian bird species. However, as civilization expanded and harvesting technologies became more efficient, the impacts on wildlife populations also expanded dramatically, including the near-extirpation of the American bison and the actual extinction of the passenger pigeon and the Carolina parakeet. Losses like these, along with the decline of many big game and other wildlife species, inspired scientists and conservationists to establish the Boone and Crockett

SCIENCE BLASTS

Jonathan R. Mawdsley

B&C PROFESSIONAL MEMBER

CHIEF OF THE COOPERATIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH UNITS

“The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces.” — Aldo Leopold A Sand County Almanac, 1949

Club in 1887. The Club spurred the creation of numerous additional conservation groups across the country, as well as state and federal agencies dedicated to conserving and managing North America’s remarkable wildlife.

EARLY EFFORTS IN SPECIES RESTORATION

One of the first efforts of these pioneer conservationists was to place individuals of locally extirpated species back in the habitats and landscapes that they had formerly occupied. Early efforts focused on such iconic species as whitetail deer and American bison. The initial efforts to translocate deer are believed to have been conducted by private individuals in the 19th

In 1907, the American Bison Society shipped 15 bison from the Bronx Zoo to the newly established refuge, making it the first animal reintroduction in North America.

and early 20th centuries. During these same decades, U. S. state fish and wildlife agencies were established for the express purpose of conserving and managing big game species. This mandate included restoring species such as whitetail deer to areas where they had been totally extirpated by unrestricted and unregulated harvest. By the 1950s, most state agencies had an active deer restocking program, contributing to their remarkable recovery throughout eastern North America by the beginning of the 21st century.

In the early 20th century, private groups such as the American Bison Society and the New York Zoological Society initiated programs to translocate American bison from surviving herds to zoos and other areas where they could be propagated for reintroduction efforts. Many of the surviving American bison in the world today are descended from animals involved in these pioneering efforts. Techniques of animal capture, captive care, transport, and release developed originally for the restoration of deer and bison have contributed to restoration efforts for many other wildlife species in North America and around the world.

Kauffman, Unit Leader, USGS Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, second from left, works with Wyoming Game and Fish Department and University of Wyoming collaborators

MODERN RESTORATION MUST INCLUDE SCIENCE

Modern wildlife restoration efforts require input and information from a wide variety of scientific disciplines. For starters, enough must be known about the species’ biology and habitat requirements “in the wild,” so we have a reasonable expectation that a restoration effort will be successful. Wildlife managers, working in collaboration with species experts, must do careful work in the field to identify sites where reintroduction is likely to succeed. Research on capture, transport, and release techniques must be consulted to minimize animal distress and injury. With ever-increasing concerns about wildlife disease, wildlife veterinarians will often need to be consulted to ensure that restoration efforts do not inadvertently contribute to disease spread. Wildlife veterinarians also become essential if an animal must be sedated or euthanized. And, of course, a whole panoply of logistical, technical, and legal issues need to be addressed before any attempt to move animals. Finally, a robust scientifically-based tracking program will help state and federal wildlife biologists evaluate the success of the restoration

effort and determine whether further restoration activities are likely to succeed.

Another key aspect of wildlife restoration is the restoration of habitats, the biological and physical aspects of the environment that help to support populations of particular species in particular places. In his 1933 textbook Game Management , Aldo Leopold provided an extensive discussion of the types and kinds of habitat restoration techniques available at that time. Leopold’s key insight was that manipulations of existing habitat conditions could benefit wildlife populations, including many of the species that interest hunters and wildlife enthusiasts. Leopold’s book provides “worked examples” showing how habitat features could be managed on a farm or rural landscape to benefit deer, quail, waterfowl, and other game species populations.

The science of habitat restoration has exploded since Leopold’s day, with active research, scientific testing, and refinement of techniques going on around the globe in numerous ecological communities and habitat types. Habitat restoration offers wildlife managers a variety of methods for managing

the physical environment utilized by wildlife species, from individual populations to whole suites of species. Habitat restoration efforts are most commonly attempted on ecological systems such as wetlands, prairies and grasslands, coastal marshes and dune systems, riverine and riparian habitats, as well as areas altered by human activities, including mines and mine spoils, severely burned landscapes, and deeply eroded creeks and waterways.

I say “attempted” because the general experience of wildlife managers is that some of these activities are more successful than others. A century of scientific habitat restoration efforts has taught wildlife managers that putting a system back “the way it was” to some previous state is extraordinarily difficult. Instead, habitat restoration programs must focus on what desired future condition is feasible and practicable on a particular parcel of land, given the resources and tools at hand. Some habitat features are quickly restored with heavy equipment— such as an open sandy area for turkeys and other game birds. Others, such as old-growth hollow trees for bear denning and bat

Matt

to release an elk fitted with a GPS tracking collar.

roosting, may take decades or even centuries to restore. Removing invasive vegetation is usually part of any habitat restoration program, yet without long-term maintenance and attention to soil seed banks and incoming seeds from birds and other animals, the invasive plant species may be back within a few years. Prescribed fire is often recommended for clearing invasive vegetation in terrestrial ecosystems, yet fire is clearly going to be an inappropriate tool in many urban and suburban areas. Fire can cause significant issues with air quality, and woe to the fire manager whose fire gets out of control and damages human property or, worse yet, leads to loss of human life. Mechanical clearing methods are often applied when fire is not appropriate, but these methods must be repeated frequently to keep undesirable vegetation under control.

As can be seen from these few examples, the work of the habitat manager draws on an extensive body of science, including soil science, geology, range and grassland management, forestry, fire science, stream morphology, invasive species biology, wildlife ecology and management, and many other related fields of knowledge.

A RESTORATION CASE STUDY

In one of my earliest jobs in the conservation field, I managed a grant program that provided funding to support small community-based habitat restoration projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We ensured that community groups from state and federal agencies had appropriate technical support for their habitat efforts and had all of the appropriate permits and permissions for their work from experts at these same agencies. Our grant recipients ranged from big national non-

governmental organizations to regional conservation groups to small “mom and pop” local land trusts and watershed associations. After five years of grant-giving, we decided to see if our conservation investments had stood the test of time. We hired a professional grant evaluation firm to spend a summer visiting 50 of the habitat restoration projects we had funded. At the end of the summer, they reported that only two of the 50 projects they had examined in the field had met the basic criteria and appeared to be on target for success. The remaining 48 projects were a dismal catalog of conservation failures. New plantings were not watered; they were trampled underfoot, mowed by city staff, and overwhelmed by invasive vegetation. Streams with restored banks were “blown out” in flash flooding events. Sand and debris from flooding events choked restored stream channels. New landowners cleared riparian buffer plantings. “Living shorelines” were eroded by winter storms, and on and on.

From this, you can take away the message that habitat restoration can be very challenging and that many projects do not succeed as planned. Aldo Leopold’s warning about intelligent tinkering has proven extraordinarily wise and prescient. Systems from which key elements have already been lost are extraordinarily difficult to restore to a previous condition. Equally prescient were the words Boone and Crockett Club co-founder Theodore Roosevelt spoke on May 6, 1903, at the Grand Canyon. “Leave it as it is. You can not improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.” One of the key lessons that we can take from Roosevelt’s words, confirmed by modern wildlife science, is that restoring habitat is often much harder than conserving it in the first place.

USGS Scientists taking a sediment core samples at Six Gill Slough restored marsh.

We can be thankful for the wise and prescient actions of President Theodore Roosevelt and others who have conserved and wisely managed so much of the magnificent landscapes in North America that support our equally magnificent big game species. From our forebears, we have inherited a rich abundance of wildlife habitat that supports a tremendous diversity of wildlife species. From our forebears, we have also learned to appreciate the importance of science in wildlife and habitat management, which provides us with the information we need to keep habitats productive for wildlife and to restore both wildlife and habitats as needed. As members of the Boone and Crockett Club, we can be proud of this legacy and the great conservation successes that we have enjoyed in North America by applying science to problems in wildlife and habitat management. n

The Future of Hunting Meets

SCI’s International Convention - The Greatest Hunting Show on the Planet Returns to Music City in 2026!

Save the Date: February 18 th - 21 st, 2026

Experience the thrill with world-class outfitters, premier auctions, global firearms makers, and must-have gear all under one roof. Don’t miss out on the ultimate destination for today’s hunter!

Proxy War

The reintroduction of wolves in the U.S. has been as much a social experiment as an ecological one. Is their reintroduction only deepening the divide between urban and rural America in the West? And does the solution exist?

Thirty years ago, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. It is one of the greatest conservation stories in modern times. Yet few animals in North America are more steeped in conflict.

As an image and symbol, the wolf is polarized into either sainthood and life eternal on the Endangered Species List or devilry and the overreach of a distant federal government. With each shift in government policy—whether federal protection or state antagonism—the symbol grows more powerful until maybe the wolf doesn’t matter at all.

With the recent reintroduction of wolves into Colorado and potential congressional legislative action aimed at nationwide delisting, the simmering fight over wolves has found new flame. Predicting the future is a fool’s errand, but if Americans want a glimpse into what could happen, we should turn our gaze first to Idaho.

FROM EXTIRPATION TO REINTRODUCTION

Wolves live on the arc of a great pendulum. At the time of European contact, they were found across the entirety of North America. By 1930, through government-sponsored eradication programs, North America’s largest existing canid was nearly extirpated from the contiguous United States. Although a holdout population remained in the northern Great Lakes region, and vast numbers roamed remote stretches of Canada and Alaska, the gray wolf was functionally extinct in the Lower 48. But with the signing of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the great pendulum began to retrace its arc.

As a provision of listing wolves under the ESA, the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was finalized by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in 1987. By 1994, critical habitat was

designated in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming for the reintroduction of wolves as a non-essential, experimental population, which allowed for flexible management techniques to mitigate the inevitable conflict wolves would bring. The stated recovery objective for Idaho was 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs. But where exactly do you put an animal with a history of conflict that eats an average of seven pounds of meat each day?

Larger than Yellowstone National Park at 2.37 million acres, the Frank Church–River of No Return Wilderness in central Idaho is the largest contiguous roadless area in the Lower 48. “The Frank” is Wilderness with a capital “W,” the federally designated kind where you can’t drive your pickup or ride an ATV, and you better not skip leg day if you are going to pack out an elk. It’s full of prey animals and devoid of people. What better landscape to reintroduce a beast that makes its living taking down large megafauna with its face?

But before the first Lobo made tracks in The Frank, Idaho set a collision course with the federal government over who, how, and where wolves would be managed—and they lost. With the writing on the wall and no power to overrule the reintroduction, Idaho

took its wildlife management agency and went home. Idaho’s legislature forbade Idaho Fish and Game from participating in the wolf recovery effort until they could do it on their own sovereign terms.

Unable to unilaterally manage the reintroduction, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) turned to the Nez Perce Tribe, who held treaty rights and access to the majority of the recovery zone. Like the wolf, the Nez Perce were persecuted and removed from their ancestral homelands to live on reservations a fraction the size of their former range. Participation in wolf management meant an opportunity to exercise Tribal sovereignty over their traditional homeland. It was also a chance to restore something to the earth and to their culture. With assistance from the federal government, they would oversee the recovery effort.

And so it came to pass that three dozen wolves were released into the snowy hills and dark timber of a vast and wild landscape in central Idaho. What could possibly go wrong?

A SIMPLE MATTER OF SCIENCE AND OF BLOOD

Down in Yellowstone, a similar effort was underway. In an ecosystem devoid of natural human predation, wolves filled the apex niche with dramatic effect. Researchers observed a new “landscape of fear” in which previously unpressured herds of deer, elk, and bison responded to the threat of predation by altering movement patterns away from riparian areas where wolves could easily pick them off. Decreased ungulate traffic altered

Reintroduced wolves being carried to acclimation pens in Yellowstone National Park in January 1995.

erosion patterns, beavers reconstructed wetlands in disrepair, and vegetation growth damaged by over-browsing recuperated seemingly overnight. Animal rights organizations and media outlets latched onto the way wolves changed the landscape, but this portrayal was not without its critics in the scientific community.

Science is self-correcting, and subsequent studies undermined the validity of previous claims to the supernatural power of wolves. Claims that wolves opened territory for the recolonization of beavers ignore that 129 beavers were introduced on the northern border of Yellowstone during the study period. That wolves were the driving factor in elk herd declines post-reintroduction ignores the severe winters of 1996 and ’97, increased calf predation from a growing grizzly population, and record cow elk harvests by hunters in areas surrounding the park. And the miracle of wolf-induced willow growth ignores that the growing season in northern Yellowstone has lengthened by nearly 30 days since wolf reintroduction, a nod to a changing climate.

But the most glaring omission was that the vast majority of the wolf’s habitat lies outside the protected boundaries of the National Park System, making the external validity of many such claims suspect in the presence of more impactful predators, like humans. That wolves brought balance to the ecosystem was undisputed, but that they wielded the powers of a

demigod was a slippery slope. Their return was also not without blood. Like humans, wolves wage war against one another. With pack territories 25 square miles or larger, wolves will defend their territory to the death, and wolf-on-wolf violence is their largest cause of mortality. Also, like humans, wolves extend their violence to other species they see as a threat to their physical and territorial well-being. In the Grand Tetons, wolves have been documented to regularly target mountain lion kittens. The killings negatively impact lion populations far more than the combined effects of human predation or prey scarcity. These forays against lion offspring are not for food but are hypothesized as a method of mitigating the effects of competition, leaving behind the torn and mangled bodies of young lions strewn about the den sites. Adult lions are also targeted and sometimes starve after being repeatedly chased off kill sites by the same wolves.

COLLABORATION, RECOVERY, AND THE WIELDING OF THE ESA

Back in The Frank, another apex predator noticed the expansion of wolves. Hunters began reporting fewer elk and deer. Ranchers, too, began filing increasing numbers of depredation claims. Wolves were making their presence known. But with promises of responsible state management on the horizon, local communities tolerated the presence of wolves on the landscape. In what would today be unimaginable, organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife even assisted with the payment of depredation claims. With astonishing speed, wolves met every agreed-upon measure of recovery in six years. The Bush administration filed to delist, and the FWS told Idaho to get their management plan in for review. It was a monumental moment in the story of the ESA, as less than two percent of all species listed ever meet designated recovery criteria. The pendulum seemed to have

In

an ecosystem devoid of natural human predation, wolves filled the apex niche with dramatic effect. Researchers observed a new

“landscape of fear” in which previously unpressured herds of deer, elk, and bison responded to the threat of predation by altering movement patterns away from riparian

areas where wolves could easily pick them off.

Documented Wolf-Caused Livestock Losses* Annual Average, FY2018-2022

(*Confirmed and Probable)

reached an equilibrium. Wolves had been recovered in the Northern Rockies, and it was time to transfer management to the states.

Wielding the ESA like a bludgeon, animal rights organizations went to war. In a blitzkrieg of lawsuits, groups like the Center for Biological Diversity formed battle lines. They escalated an already adversarial litigation loop defined by a “take no prisoners” approach to environmental policy. Criticizing the FWS for not considering the “best available science” in their determination and arguing that wolves were still endangered “across the entirety or a significant portion of their range,” these groups leveraged the vagary of the ESA’s language to their advantage.

States and agricultural interests countersued on equally dubious grounds, and the legal fight continued for years until Senators Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) introduced a Congressional budget rider in 2011 returning management to the states, with an additional stipulation that the ruling not be subject to judicial review. President Obama signed it into law. In regions that had stable populations, wolves were now the responsibility of the state wildlife management agencies. The states had won. A consequence of that transfer was the return of regulated hunting and trapping as a population management tool.

Compensation summary for Idaho verified livestock losses and the overall value they were compensated between 2014 and 2022 through the State of Idaho’s Compensation Program.

THE POLITICS OF PREDATOR MANAGEMENT

Idaho held its first wolf hunting season in 2009. In coordination with the Nez Perce, state biologists estimated the state held 856 wolves, roughly 750 above the designated recovery objectives outlined under the ESA. That year, hunting and trapping resulted in the killing of 181 wolves. The population rebounded the following year.

After a brief hiatus in 2010 due to judicial intervention, Idaho continued the regulated hunting of wolves each year from 2011 until 2018. Harvests were moderate, and population estimates continued to show annual rebounds. Then, in 2019, the state installed remote cameras on known travel corridors and within habitat suitable for wolf packs, revealing that state estimates had been grievously wrong. Wolf numbers were through the roof. The great pendulum had swung again.

The official estimate for Idaho’s wolf population in 2019 was 1,565. In 2020, it was 1,556. In those same years, regulated harvests were 388 and 408, respectively. State and Tribal management was working, and wolves were thriving. They were thriving so much that packs expanded and began occupying parts of Washington, Oregon, Utah, and California.

But highly regulated hunting, guided by career biologists, isn’t dramatic enough to foment the type of self-serving political uproar the extremists on both sides wanted. One group of powerful interests wanted to stick it to those litigious groups who dragged them through the mud and shoved wolves down their throats. The other side needed a premise on which to petition the federal government for emergency protections, whether wolves needed it or not. Both sides wanted a slaughter. Or at least the illusion of one.

Enter Idaho Senate Bill 1211, ratified by the Idaho legislature in 2021, which sought to “revise provisions regarding the controls of depredation of wolves on livestock and domestic animals and to provide for the control of depredation of wolves on wildlife populations.” It was perfect as both a political weapon against perceived federal overreach and as a siren call to those who believe

federal management is the only way to save wolves in America. This bill harkened back to the days of total war against wolves, allowing snowmobiles, night hunting, snares, and contract killers. And with claims that it would result in the decimation of 90 percent of Idaho’s wolves, it was one hell of a call to action. But has the hype been all it’s cracked up to be?

A SERIES OF INCONVENIENT TRUTHS

Will hunters slaughter 90 percent of wolves in Idaho? So far, they haven’t. It’s been four years since the passage of SB1211, and Idaho’s Big Game Harvest Reports indicate that regulated hunting and trapping are particularly ineffective at reducing wolf populations. In the years preceding SB1211, hunters and trappers were already allowed a combined harvest of 30 wolves per hunter per year. By the time 2020 rang in a new hunting season, the population estimate for wolves in Idaho was back to 1,556. In 2021, the population was 1,543, and in 2022 it was 1,337, and 1,150 in 2023—numbers that reflect consistently low harvest rates and remain well above recovery objectives. Furthermore, a compilation of IDFG reports from 2021-2022 shows that only 11 wolves were taken through the use of expanded methods and seasons allowed under SB1211.

As ineffective as SB1211 has been, was it even warranted? A compilation of the fiscal year 20152022 reports on wolf depredations and control actions (government hunting and trapping in response to livestock kills) shows an average of 232 confirmed and probable livestock depredations per year. In a state with over 2.55 million cattle and 235,000 sheep, that comes to an annual average of 0.0000833 percent of all cattle and sheep being killed by wolves each year.

Elk and deer numbers have

“It is a commonplace of history that men condone violence for righteous causes and then feel guilty about it. It is also true that those who condemn violence most severely are sometimes its greatest voyeurs.”

- Barry Lopez, Of Wolves and Men

also fluctuated since wolf reintroduction, but not wildly. Idaho Fish and Game data indicate both healthy herds and productive hunter harvest. A nine-year streak that began in 1988 is the only period that exceeded current average elk harvests since 1935, when Idaho first began reporting seasonal harvest data. Hunters report fewer elk and deer as wolves expand their range, but this may be due to changes in habitat use patterns driven by increases in overall predator density, which includes surges in out-of-state human hunters or changes in vegetation, rather than dramatic declines in herd numbers. Wolf population trends also follow an upward trajectory. At the point of reintroduction, 35 wolves were released into the Frank. That number has grown to a population that consistently averages over 1,100 wolves. Despite exaggerated claims of slaughter on one side and fears pulled from Little Red Riding Hood on the other, Tribal oversight, science-based regulated hunting, local accommodation, and a habitat and food base that still supports pack expansion have led to a population beyond stated recovery goals by factors of magnitude. Wolves are doing really well, the livestock industry is

thriving, and hunters are harvesting from healthy elk and deer populations. We should celebrate. So why aren’t we?

MONEY TALKS

As a public trust, federal and state agencies conserve wildlife populations and habitat for the benefit of all citizens. Their mission is carried out by the unheralded efforts of career biologists, public servants, and enforcement officers. They have accomplished amazing results, the recovery of wolves being one of them. But like all agencies, they face chronic issues with funding shortfalls. This creates conflict in the prioritization of wildlife management.

Idaho remains one of the few states in which the wildlife management agency receives no general funds from the state legislature. That means wildlife and habitat conservation efforts are not funded by the general public, but almost entirely through a mix of excise taxes on firearms and ammunition, archery equipment, marine gas, hunting and fishing license sales, and special permits that give opportunity for hunters to chase big game like elk and deer, a product of both the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (Pittman-Robertson) and the Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Act of 1950 (Dingell-Johnson). Hunters, anglers, and recreational shooters have funded the lion’s share of wildlife conservation and recovery efforts

since their passage. Their outsized financial contributions have gained them a proverbial seat at the conservation table. This creates issues for representation.

This narrow funding stream creates a “customer base” that Idaho actively courts in its management decisions, going so far as to enshrine in its vision statement for the Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2028 that “The Idaho Department of Fish and Game shall work with hunters, anglers, trappers, and other Idahoans to provide abundant fish and wildlife that enables their right to hunt, fish, trap, and provides for the rich wildlife heritage they value, which is enshrined in the Fish and Game mission.” You will need to scroll all the way to page 18 of 23 to find explicit mention of those “other” Idahoans.

But those “other” Idahoans, such as birdwatchers, real-estate developers, mountain bikers, and interstate commuters, affect the health of ecosystems yet do not make nearly the same financial contributions to wildlife conservation. As such, their voices are underrepresented in the decision process. That has ramifications for the way wildlife managers approach conflict resolution when it comes to many species, not least of all wolves.

All of this exists to the ire of organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which recently attacked this funding stream head-on. In addition to its blistering pace of lawsuits against

federal agencies, the CBD recently filed a petition to withhold Pittman-Robertson funds from Idaho as punishment for their management of wolves. It is a perplexing move that would negatively impact all wildlife management in the state, but it cuts to the heart of the increasingly divergent perspectives between traditional conservationists who look at each species through the lens of overall population and those activists who focus on the rights of individual animals.

TOO MANY PEOPLE, NOT ENOUGH SPACE

As convoluted as the influence of funding on the public trust doctrine is, another factor is increasingly placing its boot heel on the necks of expanding wolf packs and state wildlife agencies alike: habitat loss and cultural migration from urban centers.

Consider Idaho’s recent growth. In 2021, Idaho was the fastest-growing state in the Union, with over 53,000 new residents. Nearly 92 percent of that growth came from out-of-state migration, with most newcomers settling in and around urban centers like Boise. Urban migrants from out-ofstate typically bring urban ideas about how state agencies should manage wildlife.

The recent ballot initiative to reintroduce wolves into Colorado is a prime example of what can happen in the face of rapid growth in a state that allows ballot initiatives,

Read the Club’s position statement on wolf and grizzly bear management.

like Idaho. In an urban/rural split, Colorado’s urban majority on the Front Range overrode rural communities and state biologists by forcing Colorado Parks & Wildlife to reintroduce wolves by 2024. That effort was complicated by the natural migration of wolves from Wyoming (who immediately began killing livestock) and the re-listing of wolves on the Endangered Species List by the 9th Circuit Court. Urban voters, often removed from the direct impacts of large predators, influence wildlife management decisions that primarily affect rural communities and challenge the expertise of wildlife professionals. But they got it done, and conflict predictably ensued.

One effort to address these issues of representation and adversarial approaches to “winning” the fight over wolves is a project, formed under the Department of the Interior, simply called the National Wolf Conversation. Led by Francine Madden, an internationally-acclaimed mediator of wildlife conflict, the project seeks to bridge gaps in America’s seemingly unbridgeable cultural divide over wolf management. Bringing together representative members of the Tribal, livestock, science, hunting, activist, and other communities, the three-year project seeks to begin a process of national conversation rather than shove one of the many fragile and bile-soaked solutions of the past down one or the other sides’ throat. It’s about getting people to the table, understanding values and

worldviews, and then maybe later talking about solutions. It’s a soft approach to a problem that frequently results in the actual killing of wolves and livestock, but it has resulted in meaningful progress in other conflicts, most notably gorillas in Uganda, tigers in Bhutan, and tortoises in the Galapagos. Could it work for wolves in America?

CASUALTIES IN A PROXY WAR

What does all of this mean in the wolf wars of the Lower 48, and how do we determine the victor? Is the goal to protect healthy wolf populations and balanced ecosystems? Is it to protect political careers by fomenting anti-federal sentiment? Or is it maybe to weaponize the Endangered Species Act in service of some proxy war over increasingly divergent views of traditional use practices like hunting and trapping?

Even in today’s politically tense atmosphere, wildlife conservation remains one of the few areas of bipartisan support. Maybe if an effort like the National Wolf Conversation were able to move past our inability to have meaningful dialogue and somehow overcome historic obstacles in this debate over

wolves, we could celebrate the last 30 years of wolf recovery for what it was—remarkable. Maybe if that effort was championed by two people in the halls of Congress, one whose affiliation begins with “R” and the other with “D,” we could prevent wolves from becoming just another casualty in our national battle over competing values.

In the absence of change, one thing remains true. By refusing to embrace nuance, allowing the great arc of wolves to swing by the push of politics, and using our brief victories to bayonet the wounded, we denigrate the work of Tribal and state wildlife professionals and allow ourselves to be manipulated. And with that manipulation, another fact becomes clear—the coming war over wolves in Colorado won’t really be about wolves at all. n

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jake Forrest Lunsford is a writer who grew up in Southern Appalachia. He’s been a Marine officer, steel worker, National Defense Fellow and Visiting Scholar at Brown University, and sometimes successful elk hunter. He is married, has four sons, and somehow finds time to write for national publications like Garden & Gun, Backcountry Journal, and others.

Staff unloads a gray wolf from a helicopter in British Columbia, Canada, in January 2025. This operation is part of Colorado Parks & Wildlife’s ongoing efforts to fulfill the voter approved initiative to reestablish gray wolves in Colorado by creating a permanent, self-sustaining population.

a Heartfelt t Hank You to our e xtraordinarY Supporter S

The Boone and Crockett Club founders created a conservation legacy that began more than 135 years ago. We stand not only on their shoulders but on the foundation built by all of our members.

Meaningful conservation has never happened in a vacuum. It takes the voice of a concerned public to speak for what is right. Conservation also takes time and other precious resources like money, which is why we are writing to express our gratitude to a handful of truly extraordinary supporters, most of whom are still with us, but some have passed.

These are members who have generously contributed $500,000 or more to help fund the Club’s vital mission. The impact of these substantial donations goes beyond monetary value. These donations help us fulfill our mission to promote the conservation and management of wildlife, preserve and encourage hunting, and maintain the highest ethical standards of fair chase and sportsmanship in North America.

There are more than two dozen members from our “Honor Roll.” More than financial supporters, these donors are kindred spirits, bound by a shared passion for the outdoors. Their commitment to conservation aligns with our vision of conserving wildlife and wild places for generations to come.

As we express our gratitude, we also cast our gaze to the distant horizon, eager to face the challenges ahead with the unwavering support of our generous hunting community. Your contributions are more than financial—they are a declaration that fair chase hunting and conservation work together. With continued support, they always will.

Together, as a community united by the love of nature and the thrill of the hunt, we are forging a legacy that celebrates the extraordinary connection between hunters and the great outdoors. And for that, we thank you.

Anthony J. Caligiuri R. Terrell McCombs President President Boone and Crockett Club Boone and Crockett Club Foundation

Hall of fame

Lee and Penny Anderson

James F. Arnold

Lowell E. Baier

Rene R. Barrientos

William A. Demmer

Gary W. Dietrich

Wesley M. Dixon, Jr.*

John P. Evans

Bobby and Sharon Floyd

George C. Hixon*

Andrew L. Hoxsey

Robert B. Johnson*

Anne Brockinton Lee

Robert Model

Michael J. Opitz

C. Robert Palmer *

Jack S. Parker.*

Remo R. Pizzagalli

Edward B. Rasmuson*

William B. Ruger, Sr.*

Michael D. Searle

Morrison Stevens, Sr.*

Ben and Roxane Strickling

Ben B. Wallace

C. Martin Wood, III

* DECEASED

TOTAL DOMINANCE

VX-6HD GEN 2

Built to meet the needs of the big game hunter, the VX®-6HD GEN 2 riflescope delivers unmatched light transmission and clarity, competition-grade adjustments, and ultra-durable construction.

Discover precision at Leupold.com.

Bringing Back a Rare West Coast

Columbian whitetail deer were among the first wildlife to make the federal endangered species list. Fifty-two years later, they’re making a cautiously optimistic comeback.

At first glance, the Columbian whitetail deer seems an unlikely species in a Western landscape dominated by Columbian blacktails. After all, most whitetails in Oregon and Washington live east of the Cascade Mountains—a few hundred miles away. With the help of Pleistocene-era glaciation and thousands of years of genetic isolation from their eastern cousins, Columbian whitetail deer managed to carve out a niche deep in blacktail country.

Originally, tens of thousands of Columbian whitetail lived in the upland prairie edge

and brushy woodlands of the Umpqua, Columbia, and Willamette River basins. Overhunting and habitat loss from development took a toll on the whitetail subspecies by the mid-19th century. As agricultural and logging interests encroached on its original habitat, Columbian whitetail populations moved into the lowlands and floodplains. These wetter, flood-prone areas were far from optimal habitat. Most recently, rising sea levels, dike breaches, and the potential for disease in these areas have proven problematic for the small-framed deer. In an all-too-familiar story, the Columbian whitetail had been pushed into a very small corner.

According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), their former 23,000-square-mile range contracted into two isolated populations that now occupy about 390 square miles—less than two percent of their previous range.

OPPOSITE: Translocating Columbian whitetail deer from Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) to Ridgefield NWR. After being captured, blindfolded, netted, and sedated, the deer were flown a short distance to the processing site. Deer were then loaded into special crates and transported by truck.

Ten sites make up the Columbia River population of Columbian whitetail deer along the Columbia River (green). Inset map shows the Columbia River population (top yellow), the Roseburg population (bottom yellow), and the likely historic range of the Columbian whitetail deer (blue).

The Roseburg population is the largest and southernmost of those two, residing entirely in Douglas County, Oregon. The Columbia River population comprises ten distinct subpopulations that dot a 60-mile stretch along the Columbia River.

By the mid-1960s, the Columbian whitetail deer—along with the grizzly bear, Key deer, and 75 other species—became the first wave of wildlife listed under the 1966 Endangered Species Preservation Act. Although Columbian whitetail deer populations will never reach pre-European settlement levels, they have rebounded to self-sustaining populations in parts of their historic range. However, these diminutive whitetails still face significant challenges.

SHAWN LENTZ

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) employees take and record biological samples from a Columbian whitetail doe before transporting to the Ridgefield NWR.

CONSERVATION ROOTED IN THE CLUB’S EARLY VISION

When the future of America’s wildlife came to a crossroads in the 1800s, Theodore Roosevelt and George Bird Grinnell didn’t just see the problem—they acted. Establishing the Boone and Crockett Club in 1887 was the first step in a series of conservation achievements that would become essential in recovering the Columbian whitetail. Perhaps the most significant is the Club’s efforts to establish the National Wildlife Refuge System, which would serve as sanctuaries providing critical habitat for wildlife species that would otherwise disappear.

An avid ornithologist, Roosevelt brought his vision to life in 1903 when he signed an Executive Order establishing Pelican Island as the first federal bird sanctuary. While Pelican Island was established as a sanctuary for pelicans, herons, and egrets—protecting them from plume hunters—it also set an important precedent for the conservation of numerous other species. Unlike national parks,

which are created for the “benefit and enjoyment of the people,” wildlife refuges were, and still are, created for a specific purpose, typically to help restore one or two specific species in peril.

Throughout Roosevelt’s presidency, he established 55 bird sanctuaries, four game preserves, five national parks, 18 national monuments, and 150 national forests. By the time he left office in 1909, President Roosevelt had protected more than 230 million acres of public land. His efforts laid the groundwork for future refuges, including two established to recover Columbian whitetail populations: the 5,300-acre Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge (RNWR) and the 6,000-acre Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge (JBH). Both refuges are located along the Columbia River and provide habitat for recovering Columbian whitetail populations.

By the 1960s, less than 500 Columbian whitetails remained after decades of overhunting and habitat loss. In 1967, they were initially listed as endangered under the precursory Endangered

Species Preservation Act of 1966. The Act was amended again in 1969 under the Endangered Species Conservation Act. Four years later, New Jersey Senator Pete Williams proposed another iteration of the Act, expanding protections. In 1973, President Richard Nixon signed the updated legislation into law, cementing the endangered status of the Columbian whitetail under the newly formed Endangered Species Act.

A CHALLENGING BUT HOPEFUL FUTURE

In addition to the federal ESA listing, state-level listings for Washington and Oregon followed in 1980 and 1987, respectively. Since then, conservation measures have led to significant population recoveries, including habitat improvements, tagging, recurring translocations, predator control, and protection at the JBH and RNWR.

Relocating deer from stable populations to areas where they can establish new footholds has been key. While some translocation sites have seen only modest gains, others, like the RNWR, have

succeeded. Since receiving more than 80 deer from JBH between 2013 and 2015, Ridgefield’s population has grown to 228 individuals, making it the largest and one of the most viable subpopulations in the Columbia River population.

Other translocation efforts within the subpopulation units have also paid off. Tenasillahe Island, a long-standing Columbian whitetail stronghold, rebounded quickly after contributing 37 deer to the new Columbia Stock Ranch site between 2020 and 2022. With restored habitat and continued monitoring, Tenasillahe now supports more than 200 deer. Columbia Stock Ranch is showing early promise as a new habitat anchor with 37 deer.

Translocations have become an effective tool when habitat loss and migration barriers prevent Columbian whitetail from returning to historical areas. Increasing urbanization only makes the situation more difficult. “This rapid growth limits opportunities for natural range expansion into areas of habitat that are not already protected,” the WDFW stated in a

2023 status review of Columbian whitetail populations. In 40 years of protection, deer migrations have only occurred because of ongoing translocations.

Even with their migration routes severed, deer populations have recovered. The most notable number bump comes from the Roseburg population, which made huge strides from just a few hundred deer in 1930 to around 2,500 in 1983. It took another 20 years, but those Douglas County whitetails were finally delisted entirely at both the state and federal levels in 2003.

It gets better. In 2022, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hit their population benchmark for the Columbia River population three times over. When the number of individual deer reached a record 1,296, that population was moved from endangered to threatened. Despite these successes, the Columbia River population remains hemmed in by challenges. Habitat loss and fragmentation are still the greatest barriers to longterm recovery. For the northernmost population, the Columbian

While whitetail deer are abundant throughout eastern North America, the Columbian whitetail deer is unique as the only subspecies found west of the Cascades. The Columbian whitetail stands out due to its geographical isolation. Separated from its nearest relatives in eastern Oregon and Washington by hundreds of miles and a mountain range, the Columbian whitetail shares general characteristics with other subspecies. However, it’s notably smaller, with does weighing 85-100 pounds and bucks 115-150 pounds. This contrasts sharply with the larger whitetails of the Upper Midwest and Canada, which can exceed 300 pounds. For comparison, the Key deer of Florida, the smallest subspecies, tops out at just 75 pounds.

That’s not jewelry this buck is wearing. Ear tags and GPS collars help wildlife biologists and managers identify and track translocated Columbian whitetails.

whitetail’s world is confined to a narrow ribbon of riparian land along the Columbia River. Like its far southeastern counterpart, the Key deer, Columbian whitetails also face increasing threats of rising sea levels, flooding, and changes in land use. Highways and urban sprawl eat into adjacent habitat, creating barriers that further isolate subpopulations. Without secure corridors to connect these individual units, natural range expansion becomes nearly impossible.

The good news is that U.S. Fish & Wildlife and its partners are now focusing on strategic habitat acquisitions in key areas around Longview and the East Fork Lewis River. These areas could provide critical linkages between subpopulations, allowing the deer to move and expand into less flood-prone uplands.

The JHB refuge is a major

player in one of the Columbian whitetail’s most resilient subpopulations, but even a refuge isn’t immune to challenges. In 2012, a massive impending dike failure on the refuge threatened to flood the area and put the entire population at risk, which happened in 1996, wiping out half of the refuge’s deer population. In 2012, though, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees got ahead of it, relocating deer to RNWR farther up the Columbia River.

Frequent flooding also degrades habitat and creates conditions for diseases such as necrobacillosis, which thrives in continuously moist soils. Necrobacillosis is a bacteria that affects the organs and jaws of ruminants like cows, deer, and sheep. These bacterial infections can lead to high mortality in cervid populations, though this isn’t currently the case with Columbian whitetail.

The recovery of Columbian whitetail populations has been anything but smooth, but in 2005, the Roseburg area saw its first Columbian whitetail deer hunt in 40 years, marking a huge milestone. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) issues 100 tags each year, allowing a few hunters to harvest these deer through landowner tags or the ODFW special draw.

Time will tell, but the rate of urban development in southern Washington and northern Oregon may keep Columbian whitetail from making the same epic gains as the whitetails eating corn and acorns further east. The worry is that unchecked fragmentation could keep the Columbia River populations isolated “islands” in an ocean of mediocre habitat. To remedy this, WDFW and USFWS are looking to work with private landowners between those islands of public land in a cooperative management system, says Ben Westfall, Conservation Coordinator for the National Deer Association. “Anytime we can bring the habitat into a more contiguous structure and expand how many acres are being managed specifically for a species like this, that is going to help tremendously in the long run.”

And with the Columbia River population’s state-level status downgraded to threatened in 2023, there’s more reason to be hopeful.

“As of now, it’s looking great,” Westfall says. “Recent estimates show that the population, over time, has essentially doubled since it was first listed as an endangered species. Seeing a success story like this, where a population rebounds enough that it actually has to be reclassified into something a little less severe, is always a win for conservation.” n

Columbian whitetail deer at the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge.

© USFWS/JAKE BONELLO

R x FOR TEXAS BIGHORN

RESTORING TEXAS BIGHORN

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni ) in Texas have a long history with physicians. Dr. “Red” Duke, former president of the Boone and Crockett Club and founder of the Texas Bighorn Society, led the restoration of bighorn sheep to Texas as the first president of the Texas Bighorn Society. Dr. Sam Cunningham, the current president of the Texas Bighorn Society, is also a physician and Regular Member of the Club. The health of the bighorn population in Texas is an enduring concern. Bighorn sheep are vulnerable to diseases spread by introduced wildlife and livestock across their range, especially in Texas, where forage and water supplies severely constrain the recovery of wildlife populations. The population of Texas bighorns was 1,200 in 2019 but numbers declined to 890 in 2021. In 2023, there were only 530. In 2024, Dr. Cunningham engaged the students of the Dr. “Red” Duke Wildlife and Conservation Policy program at Texas A&M University to consider options for addressing the bighorn crisis on public and private lands in Texas.

DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM

The Texas bighorn sheep population is found on three Wildlife Management Areas (WMA)—Black Gap, Elephant Mountain, and Sierra Diablo. Bighorn are vulnerable to competition from an introduced species: barbary sheep ( Ammotragus lervia), commonly known as aoudad. Bighorns are outnumbered 100:1 by aoudad in the Trans-Pecos region of West Texas, where the invasive population is

estimated to exceed 60,000 animals. Additionally, aoudad can carry a respiratory disease caused by the bacterium Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, also known as M. Ovi . Outbreaks of pneumonia commonly result in rapid declines of bighorn populations throughout their range, and Texas is no exception. Aoudad are less vulnerable to infection than bighorn, outcompete bighorn for essential habitat, and reproduce at a higher rate than bighorn. The result is that aoudad overwhelm bighorn populations in Texas through direct competition for habitat and the indirect effects of disease transmission. Competition for forage is high in the Trans-Pecos region. Forage production has declined in the last 30 years, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS), Range Analysis Platform. Consequently, stocking rates for cattle in the Trans-Pecos have declined by 30 percent in the same period due to the increase in shrubs and invasive grasses. Additionally, variable rainfall and

JACOB ASTON

RYLAND WIEDING

MARCUS BLUM

PERRY S. BARBOZA

B&C UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS

The mission of the Boone and Crockett Club University Programs is the development of a diverse community of high-impact wildlife conservation leaders.

droughts result in less forage for both livestock and wildlife that utilize the region. Overgrazing by livestock and invasive wildlife perpetuate damage to the range. Fortunately, we have developed practices and institutions to control overstocking on ranches (e.g., NRCS and agricultural extension programs), but regulation of invasive wildlife is more problematic.

TREATMENT OPTIONS

Controlling an invasive species is always challenging, especially when the population is well-established. Unfortunately, aoudad are well established in much of the rugged,

mountainous terrain throughout the Trans-Pecos. Analytical programs such as the Risk Contact Analysis Tool allow us to understand bighorn movements, the core habitat they occupy, and buffer zones to control and limit the contact between bighorn and aoudad. The methods and costs associated with reducing aoudad populations vary depending on the attributes of each property, but the overall problem can be addressed in three stages (see graph above).

The horizontal dotted line indicates the carrying capacity of the habitat. Aoudad are likely close to the carrying capacity of the Trans-Pecos

Stage 3: Functional eradication - no competition with bighorn.

because signs of over-browsing and overgrazing are evident in areas shared with bighorn sheep. Management of aoudad in three stages would effectively reverse the growth to minimize damage to the habitat and progressively eliminate competition with bighorn.

The first stage would be eliminating aoudad within a core area designated for bighorn. This stage is already achieved on public lands such as Elephant Mountain. In other regions, invasive deer, goats, and sheep populations have been effectively reduced by removing adult females. Aerial gunning is likely the most

Limit: Carrying capacity of range

Stage 1: Eliminate aoudad from core areas for bighorn.

Stage 2: Create buffer zone around core areas for bighorn.

Bighorn are vulnerable to competition from an introduced species—barbary sheep, commonly known as aoudad.

Population growth of an invasive species: aoudad in west Texas

effective method, especially in open, rugged habitat found in West Texas. However, trapping is also effective where animals frequent foraging and watering areas. Both methods require firm commitment and high investment from stakeholders to reduce populations and progress to stage two. The “talking cure” of engaging private landowners and other stakeholders is critical to sustaining the first stage because costs are high, revenues are low (i.e., the likelihood of selling products from aoudad is low), and the process will likely extend multiple years. The second stage requires sustaining a buffer around bighorn populations and transitioning away from eradication to reducing aoudad to a manageable density. Ground-based shooting can accomplish this second stage, which engages hunters in conservation practices beyond trophy hunting. Landowners could sell aoudad hunts in combination with “earn a ram programs,” which require removing several females for every trophy ram harvested.

The last stage would be to manage the density and distribution of the invasive population by excluding aoudad from bighorn core areas with hunting, physical boundaries (fences), and sensory boundaries (hazing perimeters with sounds and scents of predators).

Aoudad are valuable to private landowners as an exotic game animal that can be hunted yearround in Texas. Therefore, the removal of aoudad from private lands requires that landowners can afford to participate in restoring bighorn to their properties and that they will realize a benefit from that restoration. Revenue from bighorn harvest is potentially greater than that from aoudad harvest. A conservative estimate for trophy-sized aoudad rams yields $7,500 to $10,000 per hunt. A bighorn license could draw $100,000 or more. Although mature bighorn rams can be harvested at two percent of the population, the more productive aoudad population could yield five percent (or greater) rams for harvest. However, the high abundance of aoudad keeps the price low. A population of 100 bighorn could provide $200,000 from two rams,

whereas 100 aoudad could provide five rams for only $50,000. Landowners also incur an opportunity cost from aoudad because the invasive animals consume more forage than the native bighorn—100 aoudad would displace 200 bighorn, which is an annual opportunity cost of four bighorn rams for every five aoudad rams or $350,000 not realized per year. Therefore, controlling aoudad is a long-term investment in both the economy and the ecology of private lands with the added public benefit of restoring native bighorn and the health of the range.

THE PRESCRIPTION FOR TEXAS BIGHORN

The prescription for Texas bighorn is cooperation amongst current stakeholders and recruitment of new properties and their owners. In December 2024, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Bighorn Society, and the Wild Sheep Foundation partnered to establish a new population of bighorn in Franklin Mountains State Park, which is currently free of aoudad. However, private lands are essential to the persistence of

widespread populations of bighorn sheep in Texas. Financial incentives for private landowners can be created from existing institutions. For example, contributions to aoudad control from private organizations could be used as a match for federal Pittman-Robertson funds to quadruple the amount for this habitat restoration. In addition, state-sponsored programs, such as direct financial payments and property tax incentives that are well established for managing whitetail deer and mule deer, can be adapted for bighorn restoration. Perhaps the greatest incentive for landowners is the return of bighorn sheep to their part of the range and the public recognition of their stewardship represented by this iconic animal. The health of the desert bighorn is the health of the land, and the desert bighorn are a vital sign of the land and our relationship with the land and its wildlife. n

The authors are grateful to the Boone and Crockett Club and the Dr. James H. “Red” Duke Wildlife Conservation and Policy Endowment at Texas A&M University. We gratefully acknowledge the guidance and encouragement Boone and Crockett Regular Member Dr. Sam Cunningham provided to students in researching this issue and preparing this report.

Jacob Aston graduated from the Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences 5-Year Degree Program at the Bush School of Government & Public Service at Texas A&M University with a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Public Service & Administration.

Ryland Wieding graduated from Texas A&M University with a Bachelor of Science in Rangelands Wildlife and Fisheries Management.

Marcus Blum (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) is a research scientist with the Natural Resources Institute at Texas A&M University. He specializes in big game management and has extensive experience with studies of bighorn sheep.

Perry S. Barboza (B.Sc., Ph.D.) is a Professor in the Department of Rangeland Wildlife and Fisheries Management and Ecology and Conservation Biology at Texas A&M University. He works with the Bush School of Government and serves as the Boone and Crockett Chair in Wildlife Conservation and Policy at Texas A&M University.

HIT THE GROUND RUNNING

We recently concluded our 32nd Big Game Awards period on December 31, 2024. We want to thank all our Official Measurers for their time and energy in volunteering to measure big game for the Club. Since the start of the year, we have welcomed 29 new Official Measurers. A workshop was held immediately after the new year at the Texas A&M campus in College Station, Texas, in conjunction with the Pope and Young Club’s Bowhunters Bash, where 24 individuals joined the ranks. Additionally, Pope and Young Club’s 34th Biennial Judges Panel welcomed five new Official Measurers. We also plan to host an abbreviated workshop at their convention in April, where we expect to add a few more.

In mid-February, the records department and chairman Mike Opitz traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, to participate in Pope and Young’s Judges Panel. It was great to see friends and a lot of big animals! If I’m not mistaken, this is the largest turnout of antlers, horns, and skulls they’ve ever had. Needless to say, we measured a lot in the three days. Thank you to everyone at Pope and Young Club for having us.

32ND BIG GAME AWARDS

We’ve also been busy planning our festivities for the upcoming 32nd Big Game Awards program. We’ve been emailing, mailing, and calling all the top five and youth trophy owners who have a trophy accepted in the 32nd Awards period, inviting them to participate in the event. We expect another great display in Johnny Morris’ Wonders of Wildlife

National Museum in Springfield, Missouri. Grab your tickets now to avoid the next rate hike!

Some notable trophies on display are the three new World’s Records, including Justin Kallusky’s Rocky Mountain goat, Aron Wark’s musk ox, and Tim Carpenter’s Roosevelt’s elk. We also have four potential top 10 Pacific walrus, a potential number two Rocky Mountain goat, potential number two and three typical whitetail deer as well as other potential top 10 animals including desert sheep, bison, pronghorn, Central Canada barren ground caribou, Shiras’ moose, Alaska-Yukon moose, typical Coues’ whitetail, typical Columbia blacktail, tule elk, Roosevelt’s elk, grizzly bear, Alaska brown bear, and black bear.

The festivities kick off with our 32nd Big Game Awards Judges Panel in April. We invite Official Measurers throughout North America to participate in verifying the entry score. Each trophy will be measured twice by teams of two, and these two score charts will be compared to the original entry score to reach a final score.

After the Judges Panel, a group of staff and volunteers will begin setting up the Big Game Awards exhibit within the Wonders of Wildlife National Museum in Springfield, Missouri. This exhibit will run from the beginning of May through the end of July, culminating with the 32nd Big Game Awards. This exhibit will feature not only some of the largest big game in North America but also one of the largest collections of big game taken by hunters who were 16 years

TROPHY TALK

Kyle M. Lehr B&C PROFESSIONAL MEMBER DIRECTOR OF BIG GAME RECORDS

old or younger at the time of harvest. We invite you to stop by Springfield between May and July to see this world-class display.

The 32nd Big Game Awards program is a three-day event starting Thursday, July 24, 2025, with our Welcome Reception. This intimate reception occurs within the display itself, and, for many, this is the first time they’ve seen their trophies since they graciously loaned them in March. It’s a time to share stories and make plans for future adventures afield.

On Friday, July 25, 2025, we hope to see our Official Measurers at the Field Generals Luncheon. As a reminder, all Official Measurers receive a complimentary ticket for the luncheon. We will also host an Official Measurer open meeting before the luncheon, which all are welcome to attend. We will have members of the records committee and staff there to discuss all things records. Both of these events will take place at our host hotel, the DoubleTree Hilton.

For the first time, we will present the Jack Reneau Official Measurer Award of Excellence during this luncheon. This award will be given to an Official Measurer who has demonstrated many years of dedicated service to the Boone and Crockett Club Big Game Records program. It shall be presented to an OM who has consistently represented the Club as a true ambassador, promoted our Fair Chase ethic, lived by our code of conduct, and provided exceptional customer service to our trophy owners.

That evening is the Jack Steele Parker Generation Next Youth

See page 34 for more information.

Reception and Banquet at the White River Conference Center adjacent to the Wonders of Wildlife National Museum and Aquarium. All youth hunters (16 years old or younger) with an animal accepted in the 32nd Big Game Awards period are invited to participate in this event. This event was created 15 years ago at our 27th Big Game Awards Program to honor the late Jack Parker. It has since grown to become one of the highlights of the Big Game Awards.

Saturday begins with our Lifetime Luncheon at the DoubleTree to celebrate our dedicated lifetime members and their contributions to

the Club. This segways into our live auction where we help raise funds to support the Club’s work on behalf of big game conservation. We have an awesome assortment of items up for auction, and it’s not to be missed. All are welcome.

We are proud to present the culmination of the Awards program at the Buck Buckner 32nd Big Game Awards Reception and Banquet, named in honor of longtime member Eldon L. ‘Buck’ Buckner. This recognition acknowledges Buck’s numerous contributions to the Big Game Records Committee and the Boone and Crockett Club. Buck began his involvement as an

Official Measurer in 1967 and joined the Club in 1990. He actively served on the Records Committee, eventually becoming its chairman from 2002 to 2011, and later vice-president of big game records from 2012 to 2019. Upon his retirement as vice president, the Club honored him as an Honorary Life Member, a distinction reserved for members who have provided distinguished service and contributions during their tenure. There is still time to register! Registration is open until July 10. We hope to see you there! n

A group photo of all the Official Measurers present at the Field Generals Luncheon, July 22, 2022, at the 31st Big Game Awards.

Mike Opitz, Records Committee Chairman, speaking at the open meeting at the 31st Big Game Awards.

WELCOME NEW OFFICIAL MEASURERS

January 3-8, 2025 — College Station, Texas

Anthony Ballard –Brandon, MS

Ben Binnion – Uvalde, TX

JC Campbell – Alpine, TX

Kamen Campbell –Clinton, MS

Bryan Chapman –Bayfield, CO

Jose Etchart – El Paso, TX

Kory Gann – Sequin, TX

Michael Haack –Southlake, TX

Taylor Heard –San Marcos, TX

Sara Hendricks –Industry, IL

Justin Hill – Angleton, TX

Hunter Hopkins –Paducah, TX

Matthew Hughes –New Braunfels, TX

Kirby Irvin – Kempner, TX

Blaise Korzekwa – Poth, TX

JP Maples – Ada, OK

Samuel Niziolek –Powell, WY

Kristin Parma –New Braunfels, TX

Jose Salmeron –College Station, TX

Jared Tindle – Midland, TX

Randy Tomlin –Baytown, TX

Ryland Wieding –College Station, TX

Caroline Winters –Lambert, MS

Pierce Young –Brandon, MS

February 19-23, 2025 — Phoenix, Arizona

Pope and Young Club 34th Biennial Judges Panel

Dan Evenson –Fort Atkinson, WI

Ron Niziolek – Cody, WY

Brian Rimsza –Glendale, AZ

Zach Walton – Rocklin, CA

Bryan Yorksmith –Show Low, AZ

B&C Sign-Up Incentive Program Leader Board

As of April 24, 2025

1. Philip A. Herrnberger – 407

2. Bucky Ihlenfeldt – 270

3. Stanley Zirbel – 210

4. Steven Taylor – 140

5. Dale Weddle – 139

6. Brett C. Ross – 128

7. Carl Frey – 114

8. Ken Witt* – 113

9. Jerry E. Lunde – 72

9. Hanspeter Giger – 68

SEE THE COMPLETE LISTING IN THE COMMUNITIES SECTION ON OUR WEBSITE .

Each time an OM gets Someone to join B&C we put a credit by their name!

HERE’S THE BREAKDOWN

3 Members – $25 off any item in the B&C store

5 Members – Buck Knife

10 Members – B&C Boyt Sling

25 Members – OM Wool Vest

50 Members – SITKA Gear (value up to $350)

75 Members – YETI Package (value up to $500)

100 Members – Browning Rifle

150 Members – $800 Gift Card to Bass Pro Shops/Cabelas

200 Associates – Vortex Optics Gear (value up to $1,400)

Members – Kenetrek Boot Package (value up to $1,500) 400 Members – Browning Rifle (value up to $1,500) 500 Members – Hotel & registration plus $500 travel stipend to the next Awards Banquet

Would you like to give an Official Measurer credit for your renewal? Let them know when it is your time to renew and they will provide their OMID number to include with your renewal so they will receive credit.

JACK STEELE PARKER GENERATION NEXT

The Boone and Crockett Club celebrates young hunters who embrace the outdoor way of life and embody the spirit of fair chase hunting. The following is a list of the most recent big game trophies accepted into Boone and Crockett Club’s 32nd Big Game Awards Program (20222024), that have been taken by a youth hunter (16 years or younger). All of the field photos in this section are from entries that are listed in this issue and are shown in bold orange text .

This listing represents only those trophies accepted since the Spring 2025 issue of FairChase was published.

BLACK BEAR

22 7/16 Tyrrell Co., NC Tyde D. Stancil 2023 G. Batts

21 2/16 Nez Perce Co., ID Gabriel O. Kessinger 2024 D. Michael

20 15/16 Douglas Co., CO Peyton R. Yaryan 2024 R. Rockwell

GRIZZLY BEAR

23 2/16 Caribou Mt., YT Ty R. Walker 2024 R. Ratz

ALASKA BROWN BEAR

29 2/16 Aliulik Pen., AK Keelie N. 2024 F. King Kronberger

TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER

183 7/8 187 1/8 Moose Mountain Lonna L. Erickson 2021 D. Holinaty Creek, SK

174 4/8 175 5/8 Karnes Co., TX Dickson A. Witte 2023 M. Walter

167 5/8 174 1/8 St. Croix Co., WI Scott S. Holcomb 2024 S. Ashley

162 2/8 166 3/8 Eau Claire Co., WI Nathan C. Burgess 2022 C. Scott

160 6/8 166 5/8 Monroe Co., MI Archer Eberly 2024 B. Nash

NON-TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER

205 2/8 210 4/8 Caroline Co., MD Steven M. Stoltzfus 2024 J. Melvin

192 3/8 196 7/8 Clayton Co., IA Oakley B. Harbaugh 2017 L. Miller

189 1/8 195 4/8 Jackson Co., KS Flint J. Seymour 2023 T. Warner

ALASKA-YUKON MOOSE

230 3/8 234 3/8 Unalakleet River, AK Trevin R. Soderstrom 2023 P. Burress

PRONGHORN

85 2/8 85 5/8 Carbon Co., WY Hunter R. Johnston 2024 B. Wilkes

83 83 7/8 Torrance Co., NM Ty C. Beaver 2024 J. Browning

81 81 7/8 Lander Co., NV Hayden A. Pape 2024 T. Humes

Archer Eberly

A NOTE FROM JED

All the trophies with this icon featured in the following pages will be on display at Johnny Morris’ Wonders of Wildlife National Museum & Aquarium at the Bass Pro Shops in Springfield, Missouri, from May until July. Join us for all the events July 24-26, 2025. WE HOPE TO SEE YOU

Keelie N. Kronberger

Flint J. Seymour

Hunter R. Johnston

Peyton R. Yaryan

Ty C. Beaver

32ND BIG GAME AWARDS LISTING AND PHOTO GALLERY

The following pages list the most recent big game trophies accepted into Boone and Crockett Club’s 32nd Big Game Awards Program, 20222024, which includes entries received between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024. 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 Spring 2025 issue of Fair Chase was published.

1. BLACK BEAR

Hunter: Adam R. Bossuyt

Score: 21 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba

2. GRIZZLY BEAR

Hunter: Brian A. Van Lanen

Score: 27-9/16 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Norton Sound, Alaska

3. ALASKA BROWN BEAR

Hunter: Blake A. Johnnie

Score: 29-7/16 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Cold Bay, Alaska

See page 67 if you missed Jed’s note.

MUSK OX

Hunter: Julie L. Okeson

Score: 123 points

Year Taken: 2022

Location: Aylmer Lake, Nunavut

BLACK BEAR - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 23-10/16 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 20

22 12/16 Barron Co., WI Mackensey A. Hanson 2024 E. Nelson

22 9/16 Portage Co., WI Brittany E. Hoerter 2023 P. Jensen

22 8/16 Chippewa Co., WI Todd J. Senoraske 2024 J. Lunde

22 6/16 Chisago Co., MN Picked Up 2007 S. Grabow

22 1/16 Madge Lake, SK Kelly Swift 2024 P. McKenzie

21 12/16 St. Louis Co., MN Picked Up 1989 G. Villnow

21 12/16 Venango Co., PA Frank C. Grzasko 2022 D. Bastow

21 11/16 Tioga Co., PA Ronald M. White 2023 R. Conner

21 11/16 Washburn Co., WI Olivia M. Griepentrog 2023 T. Heil

21 9/16 Langlade Co., WI Sylvia A. Green 2023 T. Heil

21 7/16 Melosinskys Clayton R. Marzoff 2024 G. Daneliuk Lake, MB

21 6/16 Carswell Lake, SK Garett W. Spencer 2024 B. Milliron

21 5/16 Trempealeau Co., WI Colton J. Franks 2023 M. Sedelbauer

21 4/16 Steuben Co., NY Lee M. Moran 2023 R. Lee

21 4/16 Swan River, SK Clayton M. Smith 2024 R. Dierking

21 1/16 Menominee Indian Kurt L. Goodwill 2020 T. Heil Reservation, WI

21 1/16 Lincoln Co., WI Thomas P. Noonan III 2024 T. Heil

21 Michigan, MI Unknown 1950 G. Villnow

21 Swan River, MB Guy C. Qualls, Sr. 2024 J. Mraz

21 Lake Winnipeg, MB Adam R. Bossuyt 2024 E. Parker

20 15/16 Hyde Co., NC Jason H. Price 2022 H. Hall

20 14/16 Polk Co., MN Nicholas D. Genereux 2022 R. Dufault

20 13/16 Green Lake, SK Simon W. Payette 2023 R. Novosad

20 11/16 Wallowa Co., OR Kris J. Aufdermauer 2023 M. Carroll

20 10/16 Marathon Co., WI David J. Lepak 2022 J. Lunde

20 10/16 St. Louis Co., MN Adam D. LaFontaine 2022 R. Goebel

20 10/16 Meagher Co., MT Amber R. Scally 2024 J. Kolbe

20 9/16 Cold Lake, AB Logan D. Johnson 2023 D. Bromberger

20 6/16 Archuleta Co., CO Ronnie J. Heany 2024 T. Watts

20 6/16 Olha Lakes, MB Kyle E. Smith 2024 L. Wahlund

20 6/16 Adams Co., ID Jon D. Storrer 2024 W. Phifer

20 5/16 Clark Co., WI Robert H. Schesel 2013 P. Jensen

20 5/16 Delta Co., CO Gregory A. Yovan 2024 C. Clark

20 5/16 Hyde Co., NC John L. Dalton 2023 M. DeAngury

20 5/16 Kupreanof Island, AK Ryan D. Tanner 2024 J. Hammill

20 4/16 Oscoda Co., MI Richard Dubke 2023 B. Nash

20 4/16 Delta Co., CO Gregory A. Yovan 2016 C. Clark

20 4/16 Makwa Lake, SK Jeff D. Cathcart 2024 I. Peters

20 3/16 Lac Bouchette, QC Dave Laneuville 2022 R. Groleau

20 3/16 Assiniboine Jessy L.B. Braconnier 2023 J. Hayduk River, MB

20 2/16 Sweet Grass Co., MT Cain A. Rinehart 2023 F. King

20 2/16 Porcupine Mts., MB James L. Strickland 2023 D. Boland

20 2/16 Oneida Co., WI Gregory J. VerBruggen 2024 S. Zirbel

20 2/16 Roseau River, MB Jessy L.B. Braconnier 2024 J. Hayduk

20 1/16 Albany Co., WY Matthew J. Bernier 2024 B. Smith

20 1/16 Moberly Lake, BC Douglas M. Crowther 2024 R. Britt

20 1/16 Polk Co., WI Matthew S. Jacobs 2024 J. Lunde

20 Lake of Dennis J. Gries 2024 S. Zirbel the Woods, ON

GRIZZLY BEAR - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 27-13/16 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 23

27 9/16 Norton Sound, AK Brian A. Van Lanen 2024 S. Zirbel

27 2/16 Toklat River, AK Christopher C. 2022 P. Nelson McAllister

25 11/16 Salmon Valley, BC Unknown 2009 R. Berreth

25 5/16 Noatak River, AK Bruce Capes 2024 B. Wahlin

25 2/16 Tanana River, AK Benjamin D. Scotti 2019 W. Howton

25 2/16 Kugururok River, AK Jon Bachman 2024 J. Bugni

25 1/16 Nulato Hills, AK Scott A. Olthoff 2024 J. Pals

24 8/16 McGregor River, BC George Kortvelyessy 1975 R. Berreth

24 8/16 Nulato Hills, AK John E. Stepan 2021 D. McBride

24 7/16 Niukluk River, AK Earl W. Wellen 2018 W. Howton

23 12/16 Klokerblok River, AK Earl W. Wellen 2019 W. Howton

ALASKA BROWN BEAR - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 30-12/16 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 26

29 7/16 Cold Bay, AK Blake A. Johnnie 2024 J. Frost

29 6/16 Kaguyak Bay, AK Lance A. Kronberger 2023 F. King

28 11/16 Island Bay, AK John T. Neilson, Jr. 2024 D. Wellman

28 Chitina River, AK Peter F. Hunt 2024 T. Rogers

4. COUGAR

Hunter: Valerie J. DeBoth

Score: 14-10/16 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Montezuma County, Colorado

5. TULE ELK

Hunter: Ronald K. Quick

Score: 324-6/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Obispo County, California

6. TYPICAL AMERICAN ELK

Hunter: Dillon K. Baloun

Score: 381-4/8 points

Year Taken: 2020

Location: Sierra County, New Mexico

7. TYPICAL MULE DEER

Hunter: Benjamin M. Cromeens

Score: 197-6/8 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Oldham County, Texas

8. TYPICAL SITKA BLACKTAIL DEER

Hunter: Cody W. Barchenger

Score: 102-3/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Kodiak Island, Alaska

ALASKA

28 Shuyak Island, AK Jon R. Stephens, Jr. 2023 B. Dalzell

27 9/16

27 7/16

27 2/16

26 11/16

26 6/16

26 2/16

Alsek River, AK Federico Torres 2023 R. Martinez

Sheep Creek, AK Anthony L. Hinkle 2024 L. Gatlin

Sapsuk River, AK Theresa A. Orton 2024 C. Brent

Port Gravina, AK Raymond M. Simons 2024 F. Noska

Port Moller Bay, AK Frank C. Lin 2024 J. Ramsey

Karluk Lagoon, AK Steven D. Kellesvig 2024 A. Crum

Unimak Island, AK Frank S. Noska IV 2024 C. Brent

16-4/16

14-8/16 14 15/16 Idaho Co., ID Dustin Wright-Cornett 2023 M. Schlegel 14 10/16

Montezuma Co., CO Valerie J. DeBoth 2024 S. Zirbel

365 4/8 Morrill Co., NE Jason A. Ogden 2024 M. Dowse NON-TYPICAL AMERICAN ELK WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 478-5/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 385

414 4/8 453 1/8 Powder River Co., MT Lee J. Lakosky 2024 J. Lunde

395 1/8 411 1/8 White Pine Co., NV James G. Rooney 2024 K. Schuette

ROOSEVELT’S ELK - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 455-2/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 275

388 5/8 397 2/8 Humboldt Co., CA Stephanie R. Gremban 2024 J. Capurro

376 4/8 384 5/8 Humboldt Co., CA Danette L. Perrien 2024 D. Perrien

353 2/8 358 Humboldt Co., CA Shawn A. Collins 2024 H. Wilson

331 336 3/8 Stave Lake, BC Keith G. Yamaoka 2022 B. Ryll

328 3/8 333 2/8 Humboldt Co., CA Ryan S. Buechler 2024 D. Mallia

300 1/8 324 5/8 Humboldt Co., CA Gregory W. Spurgeon 2024 J. Fields

279 6/8 289 1/8 Humboldt Co., CA Conrad Cota, Jr. 2024 J. Fischer

TULE ELK - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 379 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 270

324 6/8 329 6/8 San Luis Ronald K. Quick 2024 J. Bugni Obispo Co., CA

283 7/8 290 5/8 San Luis Reed Prosser 2024 J. Bugni Obispo Co., CA

271 2/8 280 3/8 Mendocino Co., CA Michael R. Haack 2024 T. Humes

TYPICAL MULE DEER - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 226-4/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 180

202 5/8 209 2/8 Utah Co., UT Tyson J. Hudson 2024 D. Cowley

202 4/8 211 Souris River, SK Travis S. Markoski 2024 D. Holinaty

200 5/8 218 4/8 Arizona, AZ Unknown 2019 D. Boland

197 6/8 208 5/8 Oldham Co., TX Benjamin M. 2023 D. McBride Cromeens

191 6/8 196 5/8

ELK & MULE DEER

NON-TYPICAL MULE DEER CONTINUED

252 4/8 255 7/8 Eagle Co., CO George C. Epp 1962 D. Boland

247 3/8 252 7/8 Eagle Co., CO Unknown 1900 D. Boland

247 252 1/8 Crane Valley, SK Jordan M. Rock 2023 A. Hill

245 5/8 249 Nevada, NV Unknown 2020 D. Boland

241 5/8 246 Franklin Co., ID Unknown 1954 D. Boland

233 4/8 241 2/8 Colorado, CO Unknown 1976 D. Boland

230 4/8 234 7/8 Unknown Unknown 2023 D. Boland

230 1/8 232 6/8 Unknown Unknown 2024 D. Boland

215 3/8 221 7/8 Benton Co., OR Bob Scobe 1969 D. Mallia

TYPICAL COLUMBIA BLACKTAIL DEER

WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 182-2/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 125

141 6/8 164 3/8 Jackson Co., OR Forrest L. Thomas 2023 B. Ihlenfeldt

137 2/8 165 5/8 Napa Co., CA Nathan A. Kistner 2024 J. Onysko

129 3/8 132 6/8 Josephine Co., OR Dylan H. Fleischer 2022 B. Smith

NON-TYPICAL COLUMBIA BLACKTAIL DEER

WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 208-1/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 155

177 6/8 187 2/8 California, CA Unknown 1959 D. Mallia

161 2/8 167 1/8 Trinity Co., CA Colton C. Brown 2024 S. Boero

TYPICAL SITKA BLACKTAIL DEER

WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 133 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 100

113 7/8 118 3/8 Wrangell Island, AK Tristan M. Botsford 2024 M. Nilsen

111 7/8 114 4/8 Revillagigedo Marvin H. McCloud III 2020 J. Baichtal Island, AK

102 3/8 105 Kodiak Island, AK Cody W. Barchenger 2024 R. Wood

TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 213-5/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 160

182 7/8 186 7/8 Cedar Co., IA David A. Hajek 2022 J. Nordman

181 186 2/8 Maverick Co., TX Clarence J. Kahlig II 2023 J. Stein

178 6/8 183 1/8 Hendon, SK Bradley J. Zukewich 2023 D. Holinaty

178 4/8 181 5/8 Isanti Co., MN Waldo Schlipp 1967 J. Lunde

175 5/8 179 2/8 Hancock Co., OH Daniel D. Lamb 2024 W. Ogden

174 182 Qu’Appelle Valley, SK Reg G. Closson 1992 R. Soyka

173 202 3/8 Osage Co., KS Steven L. Masten 2023 L. Lueckenhoff

172 7/8 178 6/8 Monroe Co., MO Gregory A. Fister 2019 L. Lueckenhoff

172 5/8 179 2/8 Oneida Co., WI Elmer Maki 1967 G. Villnow

171 6/8 181 6/8 Little Smoky Clinton B. Seely 2024 R. Melom River, AB

171 5/8 177 4/8 Warren Co., MS Jeremy B. Jones 2023 S. Priest

171 2/8 174 Nelson Co., KY Brandon P. Burman 2024 D. Weddle

170 4/8 173 Cass Co., IN Michael A. Banter 2018 R. Graber

170 4/8 193 7/8 Pickaway Co., OH Logan S. Patterson 2023 R. Wood

170 4/8 174 2/8 Kenedy Co., TX G. Scott Jones 2024 W. Walters

170 2/8 181 4/8 Douglas Co., IL Austin M. Sims 2023 J. Fields

170 2/8 182 Washington Co., OH Joseph D. Hearn 2023 R. Wood

170 2/8 177 5/8 Walsh Co., ND Andrew J. Evenson 2024 R. Dufault

170 177 6/8 Maverick Co., TX Shelby D. Kennedy 2021 J. Stein

169 5/8 184 7/8 Swift Co., MN Picked Up 2024 S. Grabow

169 172 5/8 Shawano Co., WI Michael V. Biechler 2024 A. Sternagel

168 1/8 176 1/8 Trempealeau Co., WI Jerrod L. Hock 2024 T. Heil

167 5/8 182 1/8 Pigeon Lake, AB Cory R. Allen 2022 B. Daudelin

167 3/8 190 2/8 Sunken Lake, AB Steven P. Boero 2002 D. Mallia

167 3/8 175 4/8 Pickaway Co., OH Russ Boldoser 2024 R. Elkins

167 2/8 174 1/8 Lawrence Co., IN Chad M. Coats 2023 M. Verble

167 172 2/8 Meade Co., KY Joshua D. Durbin 2023 D. Weddle

165 6/8 172 3/8 McHenry Co., IL William R. Bishop, Sr. 1994 A. Sternagel

165 5/8 172 4/8 LaPorte Co., IN Bradley P. Eaton 2020 T. Wright

165 4/8 176 3/8 Grande Prairie, AB Mark S. Finn 2019 W. Voogd

164 3/8 183 7/8 Lawrence Lake, AB Michael J. Young 2022 B. Rudyk

164 2/8 167 3/8 Polk Co., WI Austin W. Plumley 2020 J. Lunde

163 7/8 171 5/8 Gasconade Co., MO Larry V. Bock 2018 L. Lueckenhoff

163 2/8 171 6/8 Ellsworth Co., KS Rowdy L.W. Dunn 2024 M. Hansen

162 7/8 176 5/8 Worth Co., MO James E. Green 2021 J. Bordelon

162 7/8 174 5/8 Sumner Co., KS Steven B. Dickey 2024 N. Watson

162 2/8 166 Leon Co., TX Melvin D. Brown III 2023 G. Adams

162 1/8 171 7/8 Jennings Co., IN Daniel M. Pickett 2024 S. Taylor

162 169 4/8 Pierce Co., WI Bruce D. Nerby 2024 J. Lunde

161 5/8 173 4/8 Lehigh Co., PA Daniel K. Hinkle 2023 R. Conner

161 5/8 173 4/8 Warren Co., MS Jeremy B. Jones 2023 S. Priest

TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER CONTINUED

161 2/8 177 7/8 Greene Co., IN Dustin J. Ketchem 2023 S. Petkovich

161 2/8 174 1/8 Anoka Co., MN Jack B. Johnson 2023 K. Lundell

161 2/8 164 Jackson Co., KY Lannie R. Davidson, Jr. 2023 M. Peterson

161 2/8 188 7/8 Dickens Co., TX Timothy J. Miller 2024 H. Monsour

160 6/8 167 5/8 Pigeon Lake, AB Jesse D. Nelson 2023 B. Daudelin

160 5/8 170 3/8 Carroll Co., KY Michael Supplee 2000 S. Taylor

160 5/8 164 6/8 Switzerland Co., IN Riley J. Wire 2022 R. Graber

160 5/8 169 3/8 Throckmorton Michael D. Corley 2023 M. Co., TX Bartoskewitz

160 5/8 184 1/8 Fulton Co., OH Charles G. Pelland, Jr. 2024 B. Nash

160 3/8 162 5/8 Breathitt Co., KY Tyson M. Gross 2023 D. Weddle

160 2/8 187 6/8 Grifton, MB Clinton M. Kaminski 2021 G. Daneliuk

160 1/8 173 3/8 Calhoun Co., MS J. Chase Clements 2023 R. Cannon

160 163 4/8 Chisago Co., MN John A. Ryberg 2019 J. Lunde

NON-TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 333-7/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 185

259 6/8 269 4/8 Kansas, KS Earl Hicks 1990 D. Boland

245 252 Coffey Co., KS Dallas Birk 2024 C. Coble

241 3/8 251 4/8 Wabaunsee Co., KS Chad N. Chambers 2024 C. Coble

240 4/8

3/8

4/8 Reno Co., KS Nicholas J. Dosch 2023 S. Adams

Manitoba, MB Picked Up 1995 D. Boland

7/8 229 4/8 Cass Co., IN Chad R. Campbell 2024 C. Coble

7/8

208 3/8 212 3/8 Kosciusko Co., IN Charlie R. Leffel 2023 R. Karczewski

207 7/8 213 6/8 Williams Co., OH Alex J.D. Wright 2024 R. Miller

207 1/8 218 3/8 Denton Co., TX Miles E. Outon 2023 E. Stanosheck

207 210 5/8 Walworth Co., WI Sean M. Hinzpeter 2024 P. Barwick

206 3/8 214 5/8 Missouri, MO Unknown 2022 D. Boland

200 2/8 212 4/8 La Salle Co., TX Joe Rivas 1973 J. Stein

198 1/8 204 Adams Co., IL Lance M. Terstriep 2023 T. Walmsley

197 6/8 199 7/8 Paddle River, AB Leslie K. Farrants 2023 W. Voogd

197 4/8 203 6/8 Maverick Co., TX A.C. Zoeller 1975 R. Bierstedt

197 207 3/8 Buffalo Co., WI Picked Up 2020 C. Collins

196 5/8 201 2/8 Noble Co., OH Neil F. Romaniszyn 1988 P. Herrnberger

196 2/8 201 5/8 Todd Co., MN David J. Venekamp 2023 T. Kalsbeck

194 3/8 199 5/8 Fletcher Lake, BC Tyler J. Hadden 2023 M. Monita

193 3/8 198 Meigs Co., OH Kenneth E. Zuspan 2022 J. Riebel

193 204 5/8 Dodge Co., WI Dan Lehner 2024 M. Kirchoff

191 7/8 204 Carter Co., OK Roma W. Loudermilk II 2023 M. Crocker

191 6/8 199 Ste. Genevieve Picked Up 2024 C. Wahl Co., MO

191 207 7/8 Knox Co., OH Cobin C. Bentz 2023 J. Riebel

190 3/8 197 6/8 Richland Co., WI Leslie N. Baker 2021 J. Lunde

188 5/8 191 6/8 Mercer Co., IL Caleb L. Drake 2024 L. Grimes

188 4/8 198 1/8 Christian Co., IL Britton D. Kettelkamp 2023 T. Walmsley

187 6/8 198 5/8 Highland Co., OH Ethan T. Eyre 2024 T. Schlater

187 1/8 195 3/8 Ohio Co., IN Casey T. Knigga 2023 J. Hooten

186 1/8 195 2/8 Nemaha Co., NE Joseph E. Marshall 2023 C. Collins

185 4/8 190 1/8 Carroll Co., MO Rickie A. Hensley 2023 B. Harriman

185 193 1/8 Lyon Co., KS Picked Up 2022 M. Peek

TYPICAL COUES’ WHITETAIL DEER

WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 144-1/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 100

116 5/8 120 3/8 Sonora, MX Travis M. Whelan 2024 M. Sipe

113 4/8 115 7/8 Sonora, MX Scott D. Henry 2024 E. Fanchin

105 4/8 113 2/8 Pima Co., AZ James A. Ismael 2023 R. Tone

NON-TYPICAL COUES’

WHITETAIL

WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 196-2/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 105

132 2/8 133 4/8 Sonora, MX Jan E. Newman 2024 D. Shirley

123 6/8 128 6/8 Sonora, MX Chris J. Thayse 2023 R. Grace

YOUR

9. PRONGHORN

Hunter: Chandler J. Adair

Score: 80-4/8 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Emery Co., Utah

10. NON-TYPICAL COUES’ WHITETAIL DEER

Hunter: Jan E. Newman

Score: 132-2/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Sonora, Mexico

11. BARREN GROUND CARIBOU

Hunter: Evan A. Minca

Score: 398-3/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Talkeetna Mts., Alaska

12. TYPICAL COLUMBIA BLACKTAIL DEER

Hunter: Dylan H. Fleischer

Score: 129-3/8 points

Year Taken: 2022

Location: Josephine Co., Oregon

13.

GROUND CARIBOU

Hunter: Gregory A. Biddinger

Score: 375-1/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Beechey Lake, Nunavut

14. NON-TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER

Hunter: Christopher S. Caldwell

Score: 196 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Wayne County, Indiana

15. ROOSEVELT’S ELK

Hunter: Gregory W. Spurgeon

Score: 300-1/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Humboldt Co., California

CENTRAL CANADA BARREN

MOOSE AND CARIBOU

7/8 Kennicott Lake, BC Craig L. White 2023 T. Boudreau 192 7/8

7/8

7/8 Bug Lake, BC Matthew N. Allen 2024 J. Schwab

4/8 Muncho Lake, BC James G. Courson 2024 D. Boland

ALASKA-YUKON

5/8 Talkeetna River, AK Tanner K. Andersen 2024 M. Sedelbauer

2/8

1/8 Twentymile Brian D. Tessmer 2024 T. Spraker River, AK

231 2/8 239 2/8 Iditarod River, AK Justin R. Cordes 2024 R. Banaszak

231 2/8 237 3/8 Lower Yukon Richard A. Land 2024 S. Parkerson River, AK River, AK

230 4/8 235 4/8 Mentanontli Scott C. Gondeck 2024 S. Parkerson River, AK

229 2/8 234 Yukon River, YT Daniel A. Welch 2024 B. Nash

228 6/8 236 7/8 Miner River, YT Harold R. Mehlberg 2022 P. Barwick

225 3/8 230 1/8 Misty Lake, YT Davant S. Malphrus, Jr. 2023 W. Carlisle 223 231 1/8 Innoko River, AK Joseph A. Green 2024 S. Zirbel

222 4/8 229 3/8 Farewell Burn, AK Aleasha D. Ansel 2024 T. Spraker

211 5/8 218 3/8 Golsovia River, AK Ray F. Lovell 2022 S. Kleinsmith 211 216 Mother Goose Wayde A. Walter 2023 S. Rauch Lake, AK

210 6/8 217 2/8 Tustumena Lake, AK Mildred E. Zimmerman 2024 D. Poole

SHIRAS’ MOOSE - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 205-4/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 140

198 6/8 205 3/8 Okanogan Co., WA Bruce B. Seton, Jr. 2024 J. Wiggs

178 2/8 181 4/8 Chaffee Co., CO David J. Morgan 2024 J. Mancuso

175 1/8 180 Lewis and Ethan T. May 2024 L. Coccoli Clark Co., MT

165 7/8 167 5/8 Shoshone Co., ID Joel L. Emerson 2024 W. Seybold

160 3/8 164 1/8 Broadwater Co., MT Jackson T. Redmon 2024 F. King

160 160 6/8 Sublette Co., WY James K. Harrower 1944 K. Dana

158 6/8 165 5/8 Grand Co., CO Daniel C. Dyer 2024 L. Gatlin

158 2/8 160 5/8 Flathead Co., MT Jarrod V. Leuning 2022 O. Opre

155 2/8 157 6/8 Boulder Co., CO Wayne A. Varra 2023 B. Smith

154 4/8 156 3/8 Caribou Co., ID Heather Hendren 2024 R. Atwood

152 3/8 155 4/8 Salt Lake Co., UT Kevin R. Severson 2024 B. Wahlin

149 149 7/8 Mineral Co., CO Daniel F. Wand 2024 J. Gardner

140 2/8 147 6/8 Park Co., CO Dana W. Roe 2023 J. Legnard

140 1/8 144 5/8 Jefferson Co., MT Ryland M. Deane 2024 K. Lehr

MOUNTAIN CARIBOU - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 459-3/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 360

407 7/8 420 7/8 Arctic Red River, NT Waylon H. Janousek 2024 D. Keene

402 4/8 415 Mackenzie Mts., NT Marty C. Loring 2024 R. Berreth

390 5/8 416 6/8 Mt. Victoria, YT Jeff G. Eno 2021 C. Walker

WOODLAND CARIBOU - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 419-5/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 265

328 4/8 336 5/8 Main Brook, NL Pierre C. Minville 2024 R. Groleau

325 4/8 338 3/8 Main Brook, NL Matthew W. Serwa 2024 T. Heil

BARREN GROUND CARIBOU - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 477 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 375

398 3/8 405 Talkeetna Mts., AK Evan A. Minca 2024 D. Rippeto

CENTRAL CANADA BARREN GROUND CARIBOU

WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 433-4/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 345

375 1/8 390 6/8 Beechey Lake, NU Gregory A. Biddinger 2024 J. Ohmer

PRONGHORN - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 96-4/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 80

92 6/8 93 2/8 Coconino Co., AZ Mark Worischeck 2024 R. Stayner

89 90 Grant Co., NM Mike Gallo 2022 R. Stayner

88 6/8 89 4/8 Lea Co., NM John P. O’Higgins 2024 R. Stayner

87 6/8 88 5/8 Elko Co., NV Jaqueline B. Forman 2024 L. Clark

86 6/8 87 4/8 Union Co., OR Mason M. Morris 2020 D. Morris

86 6/8 88 Elko Co., NV Lonny C. Brown 2024 S. Sanborn

86 4/8 91 3/8 San Miguel Co., NM Andy L. Heppeard 2024 J. Smith

86 86 3/8 Coconino Co., AZ Curtis Gregory 2023 R. Stayner

86 87 1/8 Carbon Co., UT Brandon J. Tyndall 2024 B. Capes

86 87 4/8 Pershing Co., NV Shawn T. Hanneman 2024 J. Mortensen

85 4/8 87 3/8 Hudspeth Co., TX Dan E. McBride 2024 O. Carpenter

85 2/8 86 7/8 Carbon Co., WY Michael L. Negri 2024 R. Stayner

85 85 6/8 Mora Co., NM John D. Clader 2022 O. Carpenter

83 6/8 84 7/8 Chaves Co., NM Mavrick J. Hill 2024 R. Stayner

83 4/8 84 1/8 Sweetwater Co., WY David A. Vanko 2024 R. Stayner

83 2/8 84 2/8 Mora Co., NM Dan E. McBride 2024 O. Carpenter

83 83 7/8 Maple Creek, SK Curtis T. Reisdorf 2024 S. Christensen

83 84 1/8 Sweetwater Co., WY Thomas D. Cook 2024 R. Stayner

82 6/8 83 1/8 Mora Co., NM Roger W. Steward 2021 O. Carpenter

82 4/8 83 4/8 Coconino Co., AZ Matthew J. Houle 2023 R. Priest

82 4/8 83 4/8 Washakie Co., WY Zachary D. Davenport 2024 M. Barrett

82 2/8 82 6/8 Uintah Co., UT Chris L. Williams 2022 B. Capes

82 82 6/8 Harney Co., OR Garret M. Gardner 2024 T. Morris

82 82 7/8 Harney Co., OR Andrew N. Vanderwerf 2024 R. Evans

81 4/8 82 5/8 Carson Co., TX Dean T. Jett 2024 K. Easley

81 2/8 81 6/8 Mora Co., NM Dan E. McBride 2022 O. Carpenter

81 2/8 82 2/8 Millard Co., UT McKade C. Cox 2024 D. Nielsen

81 2/8 81 5/8 Custer Co., ID Todd H. Duke 2024 M. Demick

80 6/8 82 Scotts Bluff Co., NE Trystan K. Davies 2024 W. Lisac

80 6/8 81 7/8 Elko Co., NV John D. Tinnin 2024 G. Hernandez

80 4/8 81 6/8 Emery Co., UT Chandler J. Adair 2024 D. Cowley

80 2/8 81 4/8 Natrona Co., WY Dylan P. Heide 2024 R. Bonander

80 2/8 80 5/8 Dewey Co., SD Jamie R. Ducheneaux II 2024 M. Clausen

80 2/8 80 5/8 Emery Co., UT Koby Willis 2024 D. Cowley

80 2/8 81 Roosevelt Co., NM Marc W. Gulick 2024 R. Collier

80 81 5/8 Lea Co., NM Brandon O. Ray 2022 L. Wood

BISON - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 136-4/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 115

121 6/8 122 1/8 Mt. Nansen, YT Alex Nadeau 2020 R. Ratz

120 2/8 122 4/8 Garfield Co., UT Allen Bolen 2020 D. Smith

ROCKY MOUNTAIN GOAT - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 60-4/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 47

57 4/8 57 5/8 Cleveland Pen., AK Judd D. Manuel 2024 J. Baichtal

54 6/8 55 1/8 Revillagigedo Mitchell R. Martin 2023 J. Baichtal Island, AK

52 6/8 52 7/8 Revillagigedo Derrick Mueller 2024 J. Baichtal Island, AK

51 6/8 51 7/8 Revillagigedo Wayne S. Hamilton 2024 J. Baichtal Island, AK

51 51 1/8 Skeena Mts., BC Karter F. de la Nuez 2023 P. Rusch

51 51 3/8 Wallowa Co., OR Corinne N. Boettcher 2024 R. Evans

50 50 5/8 Revillagigedo William K. Richardson 2024 J. Baichtal Island, AK

49 6/8 49 6/8 Grand Co., UT M. Shane Farrell 2024 J. Wall

49 4/8 49 7/8 Beaverfoot River, BC Adam J. Cramer 2024 M. Olson

48 6/8 49 Lake George Frank S. Noska IV 2024 C. Brent Glacier, AK

47 6/8 47 7/8 Icy Bay, AK Reid S. Alexander 2024 B. Capes

MUSK OX - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 131-4/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 105

124 6/8 127 6/8 Aylmer Lake, NT Kevin D.C. McNeil 2023 B. Rudyk

123 124 6/8 Aylmer Lake, NT Julie L. Okeson 2022 B. Rudyk

120 6/8 121 3/8 Great Bear Lake, NT Jason J. Groot 2024 P. Erickson

115 6/8 118 Aylmer Lake, NT Eric D. Stanosheck 2024 J. Barrow

112 115 2/8 Kugluktuk River, NU Kresimir P. Lackovic 2023 P. Martin

110 6/8 113 5/8 Ataniriik Lake, NU Evan Worsley 2023 D. Bromberger

110 4/8 112 1/8 Tuktut Nogait George E. Bierman 2024 T. Warren National Park, NT

109 110 3/8 Baker Lake, NU Mark R. Hamilton 2023 J. Plesuk

108 2/8 109 2/8 Tuktoyaktuk, NT Allen Bolen 2024 S. Pyper

16. ALASKA-YUKON MOOSE

Hunter: Thomas L. Teague Score: 262-5/8 points Year Taken: 2024

Location: Hart River, Yukon Territory

17. PRONGHORN

Hunter: Curtis Gregory Score: 86 points Year Taken: 2023

Location: Coconino Co., Arizona

18. SHIRAS’ MOOSE

Hunter: Bruce B. Seton, Jr. Score: 198-6/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Okanogan County, Washington

19. NON-TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER

Hunter: Sean M. Hinzpeter

Score: 207 points Year Taken: 2024

Location: Walworth Co., Wisconsin

20. ROCKY MOUNTAIN GOAT

Hunter: Mitchell R. Martin Score: 54-6/8 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Revillagigedo Island, Alaska

21. MUSK OX

Hunter: Eric D. Stanosheck

Score: 115-6/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Aylmer Lake, Nunavut

22. MOUNTAIN CARIBOU

Hunter: Marty C. Loring

Score: 402-4/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Mackenzie Mountains, Nunavut

23. NON-TYPICAL WHITETAIL DEER

Hunter: Ethan T. Eyre

Score: 187-6/8 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Highland Co., Ohio

24. DESERT SHEEP

Hunter: Mike A. Carpinito

Score: 180-7/8 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Coahuila, Mexico

25. PRONGHORN

Hunter: Timothy J. Koll

Score: 84 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Elko County, Nevada

MUSK OX CONTINUED

108 110 1/8 Sagavanirktok Anna C. Hall 2023 N. Muche River, AK

106 4/8 109 Tuktoyaktuk, NT Allen Bolen 2024 S. Pyper

105 2/8 108 1/8 Nunivak Island, AK Arthur B. Maurer 2023 J. Legnardt

BIGHORN SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 216-3/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 175

208 1/8 209 Sandoval Co., NM Jimmy J. Liautaud 2024 V. Trujillo

201 1/8 202 3/8 Wallowa Co., OR Jonathan P. Pynch 2024 F. King

187 4/8 187 6/8 Park Co., MT Picked Up 2024 F. King

184 6/8 185 6/8 Banner Co., NE Jesse G. Webster, Jr. 2023 C. Kelly

184 1/8 184 2/8 Blaine Co., MT Richard F. Cebull 2024 B. Zundel

181 7/8 182 2/8 Fergus Co., MT Philip Wilcheck 2024 K. Balfourd

178 4/8 179 5/8 Kananaskis River, AB Talus J. Hume 2024 D. Skinner

178 3/8 179 1/8 Routt Co., CO Tyler L. Snyder 2024 J. Knez

177 5/8 178 5/8 Confederated Tribes Timothy C. Haught 2024 K. Lehr of Warm Springs, OR

177 1/8 177 5/8 Phillips Co., MT Paul A. Lautner 2024 B. Zundel

176 6/8 177 3/8 Custer Co., SD Chad D. Olson 2024 S. Rauch

175 6/8 177 1/8 Lewis and Cindy L. Savage 2022 L. Desmarais Clark Co., MT

DESERT SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 205-1/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 165

184 3/8 184 5/8 Cochise Co., AZ Shaun D. Finch 2023 M. Sipe

182 1/8 183 2/8 Sonora, MX Jay C. Johnson 2024 J. Legnard

181 3/8 182 1/8 Nuevo Leon, MX Henry G. Raats 2023 V. Trujillo

180 7/8 181 4/8 Coahuila, MX Mike A. Carpinito 2023 F. King

173 4/8 175 1/8 Sonora, MX Marty C. Loring 2024 R. Berreth

172 2/8 172 6/8 Kane Co., UT Cael M. Sargent 2024 B. Capes

171 7/8 172 3/8 Sonora, MX Chris J. Thayse 2023 R. Grace

171 6/8 172 4/8 Dona Ana Co., NM Leonard W. Wood 2023 R. Cantu

166 166 2/8 Mineral Co., NV Donald W. Biggs 2023 T. Humes

DALL’S SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 189-6/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 160

171 1/8 171 4/8 Delta River, AK Anton J. Stewart 2024 T. Brew

169 1/8 169 5/8 Mackenzie Mts., NT Mark R. Endries 2024 B. Ihlenfeldt

165 7/8 166 1/8 Norman Wells, NT David W. Stuhr 2024 S. Godfrey

164 7/8 165 1/8 Chugach Mts., AK Dale Madsen 2024 D. Larsen

161 5/8 161 7/8 Chugach Mts., AK Charles K. Kahahawai 2024 D. Rippeto

STONE’S SHEEP - WORLD’S RECORD SCORE 196-6/8 - MINIMUM ENTRY SCORE 160

172 5/8 173 3/8 Liard River, BC Karter C.F. de la Nuez 2024 P. Rusch

169 7/8 170 7/8 Pelly Mts., YT Cole R. Johnson 2024 C. Walker

169 1/8 169 2/8 Muncho Lake, BC Jeffrey A. McNerney 2024 J. Wiggs

163 5/8 163 7/8 Terminal Range, BC Leo H. Goss 2024 F. King

163 163 4/8 Tuchodi River, BC Tyler Hwalstad 2024 M. Conci

160 6/8 161 Gathto Creek, BC Brian K. Turner 2024 V. Trujillo

160 4/8 160 7/8 Scoop Lake, BC Jesse G. Webster, Jr. 2022 C. Kelly

160 1/8 162 5/8 Tentsi Creek, BC Dawson R. 2024 M. Conci den Biesen

26. BIGHORN SHEEP

Hunter: Michael L. Tatum

Score: 175-3/8 points

Year Taken: 2023

Location: Ravalli County, Montana

27. ROCKY MOUNTAIN GOAT

Hunter: Judd D. Manuel

Score: 57-4/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Cleveland Peninsula, Alaska

28. STONE’S SHEEP

Hunter: Dawson R. den Biesen

Score: 160-1/8 points

Year Taken: 2024

Location: Tentsi Creek, British Columbia

CAUGHT ON CAMERA

TRAIL CAMERA PHOTOS FROM THE BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB’S THEODORE ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL RANCH

Dupuyer, Montana

LETHALLY GENTLE

UPLAND GAME CLASSIC

The search for short-chambered, low-recoil, and low-pressure shotshells is over! Introducing B&P’s newest addition to the Upland Game line, Classic. This shell is designed specifically for being gentle on your older shotguns. Utilizing B&P’s Gordon Basewad Technology, this may be the softest shooting shotshell available on the market. Whether it’s an afternoon of shooting clays or a morning of busting coveys, your ‘old reliable’ will perform with every shot.