Fair Chase Fall 2011

Fall 2011 | $7.95

Denali National Park in Central Alaska Volume 26

n

Number 3

n

© Lon E. Lauber

Fall 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

From the Editor | In this Issue..................................................................... Howard P. Monsour, Jr.

6

From the President | Wild Rides This Summer...........................................Ben B. Wallace

CONSERVATION & HISTORY | 8

10 Capitol Comments | Organized to Protect Conservation ............................ Steven Williams 12 Member Library | Belmore Browne – Artist, Hunter, Writer ...................... Theodore J. Holsten 14 camp fire club of america | AWCP Spotlight................... Jeffrey A. Gronauer 16 the future of the national forests | Part 1...........Jack Ward Thomas 24 LAST MAN STANDING | Jaguar Conservancy............. Harv Ebers and Ron Thompson

Section Sponsored by

14 | Camp Fire

16 | Future

24 | Jaguar

RESEARCH & EDUCATION | 30

32 Knowledge Base | Taking Education to Where Students Live................... Winifred B. Kessler 34 B&C Professors’ Corner | Sound Biology and Policy................................. Paul R. Krausman 36 CONSERVATION LEADERS FOR TOMORROW | The Changing Faces of Wildlife Management..................................................................... Zachary E. Lowe

36 | Leaders

HUNTING, ETHICS & BIG GAME RECORDS | 42 44 The Ageless model 70 | In 1936, Winchester’s flagship rose

from the Depression as the gold standard of rifles. Still is..............................Wayne van Zwoll

52 THEN & NOW | Alberta Mule Deer........................................................................ Glenn Brown 58 generation next | Celebrating Youth Hunting...............................................B&C Staff 64 Beyond the Score | Hunting Stories.............................................................. Justin E. Spring 66 Trophy Talk | Entry Affidavit and Circumference Measurements...................... Jack Reneau 68 Recently Accepted Trophies | 28th Awards Program Entries....... B&C Records Department 74 Trophy Photo Gallery | Sponsored by Realtree AP........................ B&C Records Department

44 | Model 70

52 | Alberta

58 | Youth

FROM THE EDITOR In this Issue Welcome to the fall edition of Fair Chase magazine.

Anticipation for this year’s hunting is high. Hopefully you will have a successful experience, for it is the experience that counts, not necessarily the trophy.

In this issue I want to draw your attention to part one of a two-part series, “The Future of the National Forests—Who Will Howard P. Answer an Uncertain Trumpet?” by Jack Ward Thomas, Ph.D., past Monsour, Jr. chief of the U.S. Forest Service and retired Boone and Crockett Editor-in-Chief Professor at the University of Montana. There are rare times in my Chairman B&C Publications Committee life when, as I am reading something, I realize how important an article is. This was one of them! Thomas represents the pinnacle of one whose knowledge and experience with the Forest Service deserves our full attention when he speaks or writes on the subject. When you read this article, you will come to understand the tangled web that is strangulating the agency’s ability to manage our national forests. Importantly, Thomas provides suggestions for “cleaving” the Gordian knot. This two-part article should inspire us (the Boone and Crockett Club and other conservation groups) into action!

Our president, in his message, appropriately calls on all of us “to convince Congress of the perils in failing to invest in our natural resources” as we look at draconian budget cuts that will effectively gut wildlife conservation efforts.

Paul R. Krausman, Ph.D., Boone and Crockett professor of wildlife conservation, finishes a three-part series (B&C Professor’s Corner) emphasizing the importance of science in the decisions made in wildlife management.

In a sense, these three articles are related. All of us realize that we face significant challenges in the near future. The decisions made by government, both national and local, could affect the future of our hunting heritage. It is no small challenge, but inspiration from our past mentors, the founders of this Club, continues to give us the means to persevere. When I look at the history of what was accomplished, I realize that nothing came easy. Most of the battles were won in the third and fourth round, not the first. None of our founders faltered in their tenacity to persevere. We must all endeavor to carry on.

I rarely mention our hunting section in this column, but this issue has one of the best articles on the Winchester Model 70 written by Wayne van Zwoll that I have ever read. I own 12 Model 70s, and this article was a joy to read. Also, “Beyond the Score” shows us what a good guide and determination will accomplish. Most of the time, it is the extra effort that gets you the best results when you hunt. But, then again, isn’t that true in all we do in life?

I wish all of you a successful fall in the field. As always, we at Fair Chase take great pride and pleasure in presenting you with this magazine. n

Fair Chase PRODUCTION STAFF Editor-in-Chief & Publications Chairman

Howard P. Monsour, Jr. Managing Editor/Design

Julie T. Houk Conservation and History Editor

Steven Williams Research and Education Editor

Winifred B. Kessler Hunting and Ethics Editor

Kyle C. Krause Assistant Editors

Keith Balfourd

Craig Boddington

Jack Reneau

Tony A. Schoonen Assistant Designer

Karlie Slayer Editorial Contributors

Wayne Armacost

Glenn Brown

Harv Ebers

Theodore J. Holsten

Jeffrey A. Gronauer

Winifred B. Kessler

Paul R. Krausman

Zachary E. Lowe

Howard P. Monsour, Jr.

Ted Nugent

Jack Reneau

Rylan Rudebusch

Justin E. Spring

Jack Ward Thomas

Ron Thompson

Wayne van Zwoll

Ben B. Wallace

Steven Williams Photographic Contributors

Tony Bynum

Donald M. Jones

Lon E. Lauber

Ron Niebrugge

Jami Tarris Fair Chase is published quarterly by the Boone and Crockett Club and distributed to its Members and Associates. Material in this magazine may be freely quoted and/or reprinted in other publications and media, so long as proper credit is given to Fair Chase. The only exception applies to articles that are reprinted in Fair Chase from other magazines, in which case, the Club does not hold the reprint rights. The opinions expressed by the contributors of articles are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Boone and Crockett Club.

Fair Chase (ISSN 1077-4627) is published for $35 per year by the Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801. Periodical postage is paid in Missoula, Montana, and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: Fair Chase, Boone and Crockett Club, 250 Station Drive, Missoula, MT 59801 Phone: (406) 542-1888 Fax: (406) 542-0784

National Advertising

Bernard + Associates, 767 Mill St. Reno, NV 89502 jeff@bernardandassociates.com Phone: (775) 323-6828

Photo courtesy of Wayne van Zwoll

B&C STAFF Chief of Staff – Tony A. Schoonen Director of Big Game Records – Jack Reneau Director of Publications – Julie T. Houk Director of Marketing – Keith Balfourd Director of Conservation Education – Lisa B. Flowers Office Manager – Sandy Poston Controller – Jan Krueger TRM Ranch Manager – Mike Briggs Assistant Director of Big Game Records – Justin Spring Development Program Manager – Jodi Bishop Assistant Controller – Abra Loran Assistant Graphic Designer – Karlie Slayer Customer Service – Amy Hutchison Records Dept. Assistant – Wendy Nickelson Publications Intern – Danny Johnston

4 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

FROM THE PRESIDENT Wild Rides This Summer You would have to live in a cave and under a rock not to be aware of what our economy is doing. For the first Ben B. Wallace time since financial service rating PRESIDENT Boone and Crockett Club companies began business, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) lowered the U.S.’s longterm credit rating from AAA to AA+.

This was a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 which was a weak compromise to increase our Country’s debt ceiling in order to pay the bills from previous over-spending by our federal government. Bottom line is that S&P was pessimistic about our federal government’s ability to get its fiscal act together.

The result of S&P’s downgrade late on Friday, August 5th, was one wild four-day roller coaster ride with the U.S. stock-market indices, in particular the Dow Jones Average (DJA).

On Monday, August 8th, the DJA fell 634.76 points. Tuesday it rose 429.92 points. Wednesday it fell again 519.83 points. Then Thursday it rose 423.37 points. Panic, fear, bewilderment—all of these emotions were in play that week. Confidence levels are down, economists are using the word “recession” again and many are pointing to a slowing economy. What does all this mean to North American Wildlife Conservation? It does not bode well.

In our last Fair Chase publication, Steven Williams, Ph.D., Professional Member and president of Wildlife Management Institute, wrote an article titled “The Budgets of Discontent”. In his article, Steve expressed concern that Congress, in its attempt to slash expenses, was proposing draconian cuts to conservation grant programs. The current levels of proposed cuts are as follows: Land and Water Conservation Fund–$149 million (33 percent); Farm Bill Conservation Section–$508 million (23 percent); National Wildlife Refuge System–$11 million (2 percent); Wetlands Reserve Program–$119 million; North American Wetlands Conservation Act–$10.2 million (20 percent); and State and Tribal Wildlife Grants - $28.2 million (31 percent). Not to be outdone, my own state of Texas slashed Texas Parks and Wildlife’s 2012-2013 (we were smart enough to have our legislature in session only 140 days on a bi-annual basis) budget by $145.46 million (20.8 percent).

Congress is on its August recess as I write this article, and I know there are efforts by many conservation organizations, including Boone and Crockett Club, to convince Congress of the perils in failing to invest in our natural resources, but I urge all of us to join in these efforts to protect our wildlife and its habitat.

On a brighter note, I had the honor to be included in a team-building experience last week with our Boone and Crockett Club staff.

Half of the B&C staff and Ben Wallace hitting the rapid known as Tumbleweed while rafting the Clark Fork River during our team-building float.

6 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Most of the staff and I went white-water rafting in the “Gorge” on the Clark Fork River outside of Cyr, Montana. I’ve never been white-water rafting and I had an absolute blast (my other “wild ride”). Once again, I’m glad and thankful to re-confirm that we have a truly talented and dedicated team working for our Club.

August is the start of our North American hunting season, and many of you are out in the woods after sheep, caribou, and other critters, while I and one of my best friends (an African rookie) are heading southeast to Zimbabwe to chase down cape buffalo and leopard. I want to wish all of you a rewarding, successful, and safe hunting season. n

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB FOUNDED IN 1887 BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS club Club President Ben B. Wallace Secretary Robert H. Hanson Treasurer Timothy C. Brady Executive Vice President – Administration

Morrison Stevens, Sr. Executive Vice President – Conservation

William A. Demmer Vice President of Administration

James F. Arnold Vice President of Big Game Records

Eldon L. “Buck” Buckner Vice President of Conservation

Stephen P. Mealey Vice President of Communications

Marc C. Mondavi Foundation President Ben B. Hollingsworth, Jr. Class of 2011 Manuel J. Chee Class of 2012 Howard P. Monsour, Jr. Class of 2013 James J. Shinner foundation Foundation President Ben B. Hollingsworth, Jr. Secretary Robert H. Hanson Treasurer Timothy C. Brady Vice President Tom L. Lewis Vice President James J. Shinner Class of 2011 Remo R. Pizzagalli

Edward B. Rasmuson

James J. Shinners

John A. Tomke

Leonard J. Vallender Class of 2012 Gary W. Dietrich

Robert H. Hanson

Ben B. Hollingsworth, Jr.

Tom L. Lewis

Morrison Stevens, Sr. Class of 2013 Timothy C. Brady

John J. Gisi

Jeffrey A. Gronauer

Earl L. Sherron, Jr.

C. Martin Wood III

Spon s ored b y

mossy oak Brand camo

CONSERVATION AND HISTORY Capitol Comments | Page 10 Member Library | Page 12 The Camp Fire Club of America | Page 14 The Future of the National Forests – Part I | Page 16 Last Man Standing | Page 24

I

© Donald M. Jones

n this issue Steve Williams updates us on the recent meeting of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) and their discussion of future conservation funding. Theodore J. Holsten’s column, “Member Library” highlights Belmore Browne and his writings and illustrations inspired by his goal to hike to the top of Mount McKinley. Regular member Jeffrey A. Gronauer helps us spotlight the Camp Fire Club of America by sharing the history of the club and its ties to the Boone and Crockett Club. Jack Ward Thomas, Ph.D., discusses in depth the future of the U.S. Forest Service in today’s political and economical climate. Lastly, Harv Ebers and Ron Thompson team up to address striking a balance with hunting, ranching, and maintaining jaguar populations in Mexico.

8 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 9

CAPITOL COMMENTS Organized to Protect Conservation In August, more than 30 of the nation’s premiere hunting conservation organizations met in Steven Williams, Ph.D. beautiful southwest Professional member Oregon for two days of Boone and Crockett Club information sharing and strategizing. The President Wildlife Management overarching issue for Institute the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) was the topic of future conservation funding. I have addressed this issue in a number of previous “Capitol Comments” columns.

Our primary concerns focused on the upcoming Farm Bill, its conservation title and the federal funding for land management agencies at both the state and federal levels. In addition, AWCP participants expressed their concern about federal grant programs that leverage non-federal dollars at a ratio of three to four times the amount of federal funds. A large coalition of organizations, America’s Voice for Conservation, Recreation and Preservation, has committed its energy to inform Congress about the national importance and economic generation associated with fish and wildlife conservation, outdoor recreation, and historic national landmarks. AWCP organizations have joined their voices with more than 600 organizations to demand that Congress recognize the contribution these activities provide to our nation’s economy and tax revenue. In brief, we are asking for a fair shake when it comes to required budget cuts and smart funding decisions.

The AWCP meeting was not only a discussion of funding. Other discussion topics included: hunting and shooting opportunities on federal lands, wolf management, Endangered Species Act reform, wild horse and burro management, the Forest Service planning rule, National Wildlife Refuge System operation, the Equal Access to Justice Act,

wilderness and roadless area designation, and importation of foreign trophies. These meetings, held twice a year, provide an important forum for conservation organizations to gather information, discuss public policy, and decide their positions on a multitude of wildlife resource issues.

The issues we discussed are complicated. Agency regulations and policy, as well as federal legislation, require careful consideration. The “devil in the details” consumed much of our discussions.

Unintended consequences of policy actions have become more of an issue than in the

management of natural resources. The Wildlife Management Institute’s predecessor was formed in 1911. One hundred years later, these three organizations are still actively involved in the formulation, review, and amendment of public natural resources policy.

These organizations have been joined by nearly 45 other national hunting conservation organizations. Each of the organizations brings its perspective, knowledge, and political power to resource policy debates.

Because the nation is facing an unresponsive economy and extremely difficult budgetary decisions, it is incumbent on all these hunting-conservationists organizations and their members to make their voices heard in Washington, D.C., and the state capitals across the nation. As we heard at the AWCP meeting, conservation funding will face staggering obstacles for the next 5 to 10 years. At the same time, major legislative and policy issues that will affect the future planning and operation of our national forests, national wildlife refuges, and Bureau of Reclamation lands are being developed and considered. These complex decisions will affect our wildlife resources and our ability to enjoy wildlife-associated recreation, including hunting. I am glad that the collective knowledge and leadership of AWCP organizations will be brought to bear on these issues.

We have an opportunity to hold the status quo, enhance our legacy, or watch our legacy be torn apart by poor decision-making, decreased budgets, or both.

I believe that all participants walked away from that meeting with the understanding that we really are facing the diminution of our conservation heritage. The question each of us has to answer is, “Will we let this happen on our watch?” n

We have an opportunity to hold the status quo, enhance our legacy, or watch our legacy be torn apart by poor decision-making, decreased budgets, or both.

10 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

past due to the litigious nature of society and the fine-tuning of existing public laws. Fish and wildlife resources are perhaps more threatened today by human population growth, energy development, climate change, land-use conversion, and water demand than any time in our nation’s history.

Harnessing the collective social and political horsepower of these organizations (some of which have membership rolls that exceed 500,000 sportsmen and women) is crucial to drive positive public policy decisions with respect to fish and wildlife conservation and the hunting and shooting sports.

Representatives of each organization had the opportunity to be exposed to experts on policy issues so that they can better inform their members of what is at stake for hunting conservationists and the resources for which we care so deeply. One hundred years ago most of the organizations that now comprise the AWCP did not exist. However, the Boone and Crockett Club and Camp Fire Club of America were both in existence then and were engaged in the public debate over the

MEMBER LIBRARY Belmore Browne - Artist, Explorer, Hunter, Writer, Mountaineer The game’s up: we’ve got to get down.

With these words to his two companions, Belmore Browne conTheodore J. Holsten ceded defeat only 125 feet from the summit of emeritus member Boone and Crockett Club Mount McKinley, North America’s highest peak at 20,335 feet. A fierce gale, 55 miles per hour, along with blinding visibility and the temperature at –15° made it impossible to continue. They came so close to the summit while setting an altitude record for climbs in North America. A short time later, as they retreated, a major earthquake rattled the mountain.

Belmore Browne made three attempts at a first ascent of Denali, the Indians’ name for the mountain. He was a member of Dr. Frederick A. Cook’s expedition in 1906.

After sending most of his party home, Cook, along with one companion, claimed he had continued on to climb and reach the summit of the great peak. Belmore, on his second McKinley expedition in 1910, proved Cook’s claim to be a lie, placing Cook’s “summit” photograph many miles away on a much lower peak.

Belmore’s third and last expedition came in 1912, and but for the onset of the great storm described above, would probably have been successful in being the first to reach the summit. Many factors made it remarkable that Belmore’s party got as far as it did. Mount McKinley, unlike most of the giant peaks of the world, rises from a low

valley rather than a high plateau. Approaches to the mountain took many weeks of difficult travel. His party had no porters and had to carry all their supplies on their backs. Their equipment was heavy and primitive by modern alpine standards. Belmore’s sleeping bag alone weighed 17 pounds! The icecreepers they wore on their boots were no match for modern crampons. Even their food presented problems. The fatty pemmican that was to be their principal energy source proved to be inedible at high altitudes, making them wretchedly sick with cramps.

What they achieved was remarkable under the circumstances.

To Belmore Browne’s everlasting credit, he was one of the earliest proponents for preservation of one of North America’s finest wildlife areas by creation of Mount McKinley National Park. The Camp Fire Club of America and the Boone and Crockett Club are given much of the credit for persuading the government to act. However, the pressure from these organizations was largely initiated by Belmore Browne and Charles Sheldon, who was also a pioneer explorer of the McKinley area.

Belmore Browne’s first major exposure to the Pacific Northwest took place in 1902 when he accompanied the Andrew J. Stone expedition to the Cassiar region of British Columbia as hunter and artist. Using his hunting prowess, he collected many animals used by the American Museum of Natural History for its habitat groups. On a later trip to the Bering Sea area, he collected Alaska brown bear groups for the museum. One of

From Left: Browne with two Dall’s sheep heads and capes. n One of Browne’s painting of Mount McKinley. n The Conquest of Mount McKinley, writen in 1913 after three attempts to reach the summit. n The inside spread of Mountain Man, by Robert H. Bates, shows a portrait painting of Browne as well as artwork done by Browne himself.

12 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Books by Belmore Browne Guns and Gunning (1908) The Conquest of Mount McKinley (1913) Mountain Man (1988) biography of Belmore Browne by Robert H. Bates

his special assignments was to secure a cub for the Bronx Zoological Gardens. The bear cub he brought back was named Ivan. It grew to a monstrous size and for many years was a major attraction at the zoo.

Belmore was an outstanding artist, and his paintings have been widely popular.

When his exploring days ended, he settled in Banff, Alberta, and with his family enjoyed the spectacular scenery of the area while he painted the wildlife and mountains that he loved. In his later years, he painted the background scenes for the wildlife dioramas at several museums including seven at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. At the time of his death at age 74 in 1954, he was working on the dioramas at Yale’s Peabody Museum. n

A merican Wildlife C onservation Partners – S potlight O rganization

Camp Fire Club of America The

by Jeffrey A. Gronauer Camp Fire Club of America B&C Regular Member

Above: Dr. Hornaday pictured with a bison in 1907, at the National Collection of Heads and Horns. The original and still official logo for the Camp Fire Club of America is illustrated with a ram (above).

BELOW: A second logo with the bison is the one the Camp Fire Conservation Fund uses. The bison was used (as opposed to the ram) as the Club members funded the majority of Hornaday’s American Bison Association’s transportation of the bison out west.

14 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

The Camp Fire Club of America (CFCA) was the brainchild of Dr. William T. Hornaday who was brought to New York in 1896 by the Boone and Crockett Club to run the New York Zoological Society (now Bronx Zoo). Hornaday would meet and befriend a number of New Yorkers who were “unattached” hunters and outdoorsmen.

He saw that B&C had only one social dinner and a long (and despairing) waiting list, so he got together with his friend George Shields, editor of Recreation magazine and proposed a new club where neither wealth, power, nor social standing counted; only proven manhood in the outdoors. The early members were naturalists, scientists, photographers, painters, sculptors, and hunters. CFCA started as a social club with several dinners a year to gather men together as they would around a campfire, thus the symbolism and name of the club. These new members, who traveled the world hunting and exploring, were the first investigative reporters who would return to the club to reveal what was happening to the wildlife and wild lands they visited.

Camp Fire Club of America was officially incorporated in 1904. With the growing concern that wilderness and wildlife were disappearing, its stated purpose was to “combine into a parent and allied clubs, sportsmen of America that, through effective organization, proper support may be given to game protection and forest preservation measures both state and national.” The Camp Fire Club of America was now a club of conservation. Hornaday’s main concern was that animals would not survive without land and habitat, which, during those years, had been devastated by industry’s clash with wild lands; turning forests into clear-cuts, gouging mountains for coal and gold, and turning rivers into sewers. Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot both joined Camp Fire and there would later be many common B&C/CFCA members who worked together on establishing parks, wildlife and forest preserves, and restoring wildlife habitat. In 1909 the CFCA officially organized a Camp Fire Committee for the Conservation of Forests, Lands, and Wildlife—today named the Conservation Committee. While the CFCA maintained an office in New York City, it purchased a property in Chappaqua, New York, in 1917, which continues to be the Camp Fire Club’s permanent home.

Hornaday spent many years testifying in Albany and Washington to stop the millinery trade from slaughtering birds for hats. He got New York State Senator Howard R. Bayne to introduce and pass the Baynes Bill, which stopped the feather millinery industry.

He went to Alaska and stopped the indiscriminant killing of Pribilof fur seals by creating

a treaty with England, Japan, and Russia. He also started the American Bison Society, which brought Bison from the East Coast out West to re-establish the almost-extinct herd. Hornaday got many CFCA members to put up $8,500 of the $10,500 needed to fund the actual Bison transportation by rail out West.

While many Camp Fire men would help Hornaday with his work, many members would work with other organizations as well.

John Burnham would run the American Game Protective and Propagation Association from 1911-1928. He worked hard on passing the Migratory Bird Act with Canada.

Burnham started the American Game Conference in 1915 to gather various state officials to meet and discuss game laws and conservation work around the country. This is today the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference run by the succeeding organization, the Wildlife Management Institute. Senator Fred Wolcott worked on passing the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Act (Duck Stamp Act) to help fund and restore dwindling duck populations.

Members like Karl Frederick, Marshall McLean and George Pratt worked on many issues in the Adirondack Park in New York.

It is not possible in so short a space to list all the accomplishments of the Camp Fire Club, but if it involved big game management, game and hunting laws, habitat restoration, national and state parks, and conservation education in this country, a Camp Fire man or committee was probably working on it.

Perhaps the longest and largest legacy of the Camp Fire Club of America comes from the early work of members Ernest Thompson Seton, Daniel Carter Beard, and Dr. William T. Hornaday. Seton and Beard had started organizations for boys back in the early 1900s. Seton had his Woodcraft Indians and Beard had his Sons of Davy Crockett. They both met and befriended Robert Baden-Powell who wanted to start a similar organization in England. Beard met Baden-Powell in Washington, made a phone call, and 20 minutes later they were meeting President Theodore Roosevelt in the Oval Office (imagine trying to do that today!). TR encouraged Baden-Powell to start his organization for boys in England. In 1908 the Boy Scouts (of England) started. It quickly spread to other countries. A short time later, another American named W.D. Boyce discovered the scouting organization in England and incorporated the idea in America (February 1910).

This led to the massive organization of a number of similar boys groups in America into one group which would be known as the

Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Seton wrote the first Boy Scout Handbook in 1910 and served as the organization’s first chief scout.

Beard would serve as a national commissioner (from 1910 to his passing in 1941). TR was the vice president and chief scout citizen.

Other Camp Fire members would serve on the board or other BSA committees. The Boy Scouts of America celebrated its 100th anniversary year in 2010. Approximately 110 million boys have been members of the BSA over the years.

Hornaday started a funding organization known as the Permanent Wild Life Protection Fund. He awarded gold medals to people who had shown proven conservation work and he also created a Gold Honor Badge specifically for the new Boy Scouts of America organization to encourage them to do conservation work. This would become the Wildlife Protection Medal and later named, after Hornaday’s passing in 1937, the William T. Hornaday Award, the highest conservation award in the BSA. This is the oldest, continually-presented conservation award in the nation. Approximately 1,100 Hornaday Awards have been given out.

Although conservation efforts slowed during the two world wars and other military conflicts when many members served, the work of the Camp Fire Club has continued since its first days. In the 1970s the CFCA

created the Camp Fire Conservation Fund, now a separate 501(c)3 organization funded

by CFCA members to help continue the work and influence of the Camp Fire Club.

To date the Camp Fire Conservation Fund has helped fund roughly 200 projects involving wildlife research, habitat restoration and conservation education.

In 2000, Camp Fire joined 35 other sportsmen organizations to form the partnership known as the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP). A Camp Fire member, Bob Model, has both served on and chaired AWCP’s federal advisory committee known as the Sporting Conservation Council during the Bush administration as well as serving on the Obama administration’s Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council.

It is somewhat humbling to see all the work these early Camp Fire members did after they started the club. They may have lived in cities like New York, but their hearts were out in the wilderness. They went to great lengths to make things happen for wildlife as they felt few people cared for the outdoors.

As in the early days, Camp Fire continues to work with many of the present sportsmen/ conservationist organizations in the country, especially the Boone and Crockett Club, to carry on the tradition of conservation in North America. n Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 15

The Future of the

National Forests Who Will Answer an Uncertain Trumpet?

Following is part one of a two-part series based on a presentation given

by B&C Emeritus member Jack Ward Thomas at a conference sponsored by the University of Montana’s O’Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West and an article co-authored by Thomas and Alex Sienkiewicz in the Public Land and Resources Law Review. Thomas is a past chief of the U.S. Forest Service and retired Boone and Crockett Professor at the University of Montana.

There are rare times in my life when I realize how important an article is.

This was one of them! Thomas represents the pinnacle of one whose knowledge and experience with the Forest Service deserves our full attention when he speaks or writes on the subject. When you read this article, you will come to understand the tangled web that is strangulating the agency’s ability to manage our national forests. Importantly, Thomas provides suggestions for “cleaving” the Gordian knot. This two-part article should inspire us—members of the Boone and Crockett Club and other conservation groups—into action!

Howard P. Monsour, Editor- in -Chief

It is late 2011, and the nation is engaged in two—maybe

two-and-a-half—wars. With long-lingering high unemployment, jobs creation has emerged the highest political priority amidst calls for dramatic reductions in federal spending and increases in taxes. The huge national debt has grown dramatically

By Jack Ward Thomas, Ph.D. B&C Emeritus Member and increasingly held by foreign entities.

Chief Emeritus, US Forest Service Cost for Medicare continues to grow. Social Professor Emeritus, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Montana Security faces long-term insolvency. Crumbling infrastructure demands attention. Energy costs are at all-time highs and destined to increase. The environmental/economic/social consequences of nuclear power generation gone wrong are significant.

There is an ongoing crisis in housing. Human populations—and their quest for the good life—continue their inexorable increase. Political divides resulted in downgrades in the credit and credit-worthiness of the United States in summer 2011. The esteem of the citizenry for members of Congress and the president spiraled downward.

16 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

“...if the trumpet

give an

uncertain soun d,

who shall prepare

himself for battle?”

I Corinthians 14:8

© TONY BYNUM

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 17

Spon s ored b y

mossy oak Brand camo

For the foreseeable future, the U.S. Forest Service seems likely to face reductions in already inadequate funding and personnel levels while demands for goods and services increase. The Forest Service desperately needs a crystal-clear mission, which it cannot provide for itself. Forest Service leaders can only propose (if allowed to do so) and multiple layers of appointed and elected officials will dispose—if they act at all.

Coherent focus requires new—or refocused—constituents to effectively birth the evolving “new Forest Service.” New notes are desperately needed for the trumpets’ renewed clarion call to service. That will require a mixed bag of potential constituents to develop and unite around a new vision.

Then, they must work to assure that the needed resources are made available. That new vision must include means of realizing significant income from provision of goods and services from national forest management beyond timber and grazing—such as recreational uses. Such ideas are not new, but now the need is obviously dire.

New Goals, Products, and Missions

As the good old/bad old days fade away, new days and new ways lie ahead. For example, as populations grow and demands for energy increase, fossil fuels will continue to ratchet up in economic and ecological costs. As the search for alternative sources of energy accelerates, the potential for biofuels looms larger.

The first thrusts in biofuels production involved federal subsidies to derive ethanol from grains to be added to gasoline—an effort more focused on the welfare of grain growers than a realistic solution to soaring fuel costs. Increased use of fertilizers (largely derived from natural gas) to produce food grains to convert to biofuels for internal combustion engines—in the face of rapidly growing human populations who need the food—begged social, economic, and ethical questions.

On the other hand, cellulosic ethanol derived from waste plant materials ranging from grasses to wood, has potential to provide such fuel. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act required an increase of renewable fuels (9 billion gallons in 2007 to 36 billion gallons by 2022). Cellulosic ethanol 18 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

was mandated to increase from 100 million gallons in 2010 to 16 billion gallons in 2022 (44 percent of the renewable fuels mandate).

Extant technology, which is constantly improving, has the potential to meet those targets in an economically/ecologically rational fashion. But, to accomplish such will require infrastructure close to the source of raw materials, and that will require some certainty of a flow of raw materials over a defined time period. In the absence of certainty there will be no such investment from the private sector.

As consequences of global climate change become more obvious, forests will play an increasing role in carbon sequestration. Over the long run, demand for traditional wood products will increase as human populations increase, economies rebound, and there is increased focus and reliance upon renewable resources. A new mix of forest products—in new combinations—lies ahead in the dense political/legal fog that clouds our vision at the moment.

The National Forests—Use Them or Lose Them?

Even as the “new” Forest Service evolves, it is enmeshed in debilitating political and economic turmoil. These forests and rangelands are too valuable, for social and economic reasons, to remain in relatively unmanaged, increasingly expensive limbo.

The Forest Service has long been ranked among the most-effective of government agencies according to research by Jeanne Nienaber Clarke and Daniel McCool. A refocused and revitalized Forest Service can regain “bureaucratic superstar” status if only it is allowed to let go of the past and move on to the future. Winston Churchill observed that, “Of this I am certain, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future.” We need to move on to the future and let go of the past, but not lose the lessons learned.

As the nation’s economic, social and political stresses increase, it will seem more and more rational to shed economic and political liabilities—especially those that can be converted to revenue. It will seem, at least to some, evermore reasonable to sell, trade or transfer the national forests for pottage.

Such moves are being actively discussed. Just pick up a copy of Who is Minding the Federal Estate? by Holly Lippke Fretwell (2009) to read more about this topic.

Addressing a “Gordian Knot”

More legislation, e.g., the recent Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2005, is a grossly inadequate and likely further confusing response to the worsening stalemate. That was just one more patch on top of other patches (laws) that haphazardly reside atop even older patches. Each of those laws must have seemed a good idea in the context of time and circumstances. Yet, in totality and considering interactions that evolved (especially as variously interpreted by the courts), they formed the threads of a now intractable Gordian knot (an intricate problem insoluble in its own terms) rendering national forest planning and management ever more costly and ineffective.

An answer to the quandary may reside in legend. Alexander of Macedonia was presented with such a puzzle knot and told that only the future ruler of Asia could undo it.

He didn’t fuss, fume and dither. He drew his sword and cleaved the knot in two.

Creation of a new Forest Service and new approaches to national forest management requires changes in thinking and direction that produces clear vision, welldefined missions, sustained adequate financing, significant revenues from sustainable utilization of national forest resources, a rejuvenated and reinvigorated work force, and cultivation, development and sustenance of supportive constituencies. Failing that, three fates loom large—singly or in combination.

The first is continuing the ongoing reversion to custodial management with increasing emphasis on wildfire prevention and suppression focused largely in the wildland-urban interface. The second is devolution of management responsibilities to other federal agencies with custodial missions (e.g., the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). Lands deemed worthy of “zoning” for production of commodities might go to the states or Bureau of Land Management, who have track records of land management to produce revenue. The third is the sale of national forest lands to the highest bidders— carried out over many

Change is required. But, the problem is too complex and controversial to be adequately addressed by administrations or Congresses without initial guidance.

years to prevent depressing markets. Purchasers would be well aware of Mark Twain’s advice to “buy land—they ain’t making any more of it.” Each of these options would cut federal expenditures and provide revenues to service burgeoning debt.

Attributes of “Bureaucratic Superstars”

In 1996, among the seven federal natural resource management agencies, the Forest Service was identified as a bureaucratic superstar based on seven factors identified by Clarke and McCool. These factors included: a pro-development multiple-use mission; a pragmatic, utilitarian philosophy; a clear beginning; a scientific basis of expertise; internal recruitment to leadership; a coherent well-defined public image; and strong support from Congress (sometimes from the chief executive) emanating from wellorganized constituencies.

What happened in the intervening 16 years?

Public and political support for the pro-development multiple-use mission collapsed and shifted more toward preservation.

Pragmatic utilitarianism was eroded by legislation, case law, changes in public opinion coupled with shifting, confused, inconsistent and dysfunctional political direction. The clear beginning evolved into a “creation myth,” then faded into memory. Scientific expertise increased—though support eroded, largely due to the quasi-independent research arm—and new knowledge became more fiscally and politically difficult to integrate into management. Internal recruitment to leadership positions continued while more and more decision authority shifted to politically appointed undersecretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). And, Forest Service chiefs, though selected from the ranks of Forest Service leaders now routinely change with administrations. Significant, often inconsistent, shifts in policy and focus became more common with changes of administrations. Consistent support from Congress, responding to well-organized constituencies, eroded, and effective new constituencies did not arise to replace those that faded away.

Of the factors identified by Clarke and McCool, only scientific expertise remains

largely intact. That begs a question. Can Americans afford, or even long tolerate, their national forests being condemned to a future of muddling through?

Today’s Forest Service employees are subject to criticism by some now-retired Forest Service veterans who served during the “good old days.” Today’s employees are as dedicated, hard-working, well-educated, and technically skilled. However, the circumstances under which they serve are much different. The Forest Service, if it ever was, is no longer a quasi-independent agency, much less an elite agency. Today, there are many more, often conflicting, laws and regulations coupled with a drumbeat of court guidance along with partners from various regulatory agencies that can and do, rather routinely, overrule actions proposed by the Forest Service.

Forest Service budget requests are reviewed and altered by a USDA undersecretary before presentation to the USDA secretary. Then, the budget is sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which makes changes—some quite dramatic.

The president presents a proposed budget to the House budget committees. The revised budget then goes to the Senate budget committees who revise the budget to their satisfaction. Then, the Senate and House committees negotiate a final budget which, when passed (it is subject to revisions on the floor of both houses), goes to the president for acceptance or veto. So, the Forest Service chief recommends budgets and policies while final decisions are made elsewhere—actually, by five entities. That does not count earmarks by various members of Congress.

Homo sapiens, as all species must, exploits its environment to survive and, perhaps, thrive. Long-term survival requires that exploitation by humans be politically and socially acceptable, science-based, economically rational and economically and ecologically sustainable. That requires flexibility and agility to routinely make mid-course corrections as informed by new ecological/economic/political knowledge, social circumstances, and availability of resources.

Depending on “Elsewhere”

Americans are using less and less of our own resources to satisfy increasing

demands of a growing population while importing what we need or want from other nations—known here as “elsewhere.”

In general, elsewhere is less well-equipped than the United States—scientifically, socially, economically, and technically—to sustainably manage forests and rangelands.

Jobs and money are exported to elsewhere as our unemployment rises and balance of trade problems grow worse. Then, elsewhere absorbs the ecological and social consequences—many quite negative—of supplying our needs and desires. At least in the short run, elsewhere gains jobs and profits in the process. Collectively, this is, and should be, questioned as ecologically irrational, morally bankrupt, economically shortsighted, socially irresponsible, and, in the long run, unsustainable.

Who Pays the Tab?

Income from national forest management is needed to help cover costs of multiple-use management. For example, recreationists, including hunters and fishers (consumptive users), should, to their long-term advantage, give up their “free lunch” and pay fees for the old reason that “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Clearly, while all citizens pay for national forest management, benefits accrue disproportionately to those who actually utilize those lands and their products, thereby creating a need for management. Logically, the buck stops, and should rest, disproportionately, with users.

As an example, visitors to national parks pay fees to fund management and rarely suggest that such is inappropriate. Interestingly, national forests provide more person-days of recreation per year than national parks. Should recreational users of national forests pay similar fees? Why not?

Perhaps a single permit should be mandatory for anyone utilizing public lands and those funds apportioned to the various agencies managing federal lands.

Future national forest managers will be expected to effectively and efficiently control stand replacement fires, create and maintain habitat for fish and wildlife; manage grazing, including for domestic livestock, assure high quality water, produce wood products—including biofuels—protection and enhancement of watersheds, roads and Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 19

facilities management, and facilitate recreational uses of various (and sometimes conflicting) kinds. Such requires communication, negotiation and ongoing compromises between interest groups. Special interest gladiators who battle for single outputs while thwarting “multiple-use” management are in the process of losing credibility, and that seems likely to continue. Future success in “multiple-use management” will require, from interested citizens, sustained intelligent involvement, conversation, cooperation, collaboration, and the mustering and sustaining of support across political parties.

Piecemeal Solutions to General Problems

In 2009, following a long-term and dramatic decline in the Forest Service’s timber program in Montana—somewhat related to conflicts between interest groups, Senator Jon Tester introduced legislation dictating management of a cluster of national forests in his home state. This legislation emerged from a self-appointed coalition of wilderness advocates, timber interests, labor, recreationists, environmentalists and others. These self-selected few sliced, diced and cut a deal amongst themselves, trading wilderness designations for a prescribed number of acres to be “treated” per year.

The groups interested in timber extraction and stand management to produce more timber, desperate in the face of a collapse in the Forest Service’s timber program, took a one-sided deal, whether they knew it or not. Wilderness advocates got their wilderness to be established in law, while the user groups were dependent on the ability of transient elected officials to secure funding via earmarks or some similar vehicle, year after year and decade after decade, to achieve an outcome dependent on changing ecological, economic and market conditions.

A similar situation relative to the management of a cluster of national forests in Oregon was proposed into law (2010) by Senator Ron Wyden. However naive or mistaken they might be, such efforts send a message. At least two senators deem the current situation so dysfunctional that they believe the future of individual national forests (of which there are 154) is best addressed via legislation tailored by 20 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

self-appointed coalitions. Therein resides the potential of managerial chaos and a clear message. It seems likely that “they know not what they do.”

Are our country’s forests really “national forests” or 154 individual “fiefdoms” to be ruled by self-appointed coalitions of interest groups with access to a sympathetic legislator(s) with enough clout to get their legislation through? And then maybe (but not likely) those congressmen can assure the needed financing from the general treasury— year after year after year. Are such fixes, made in isolation, realistic and appropriate means of long-term management of the national Forest Service? And, unless such national forests are excused from compliance with laws, regulations, or court precedents that may be contrary to the political deals, legal challenges are likely with unpredictable outcomes. How, in such cases, will or can Forest Service managers react to rapidly changing conditions—wildfires, climate change, insect and/or disease outbreaks, drought, markets and availability of infrastructure?

Is such an approach, however emotionally understandable and politically appealing, a valid long-term way to manage 154 individual national forests? Clearly, new approaches are overdue, but these are fraught with problems that are likely disastrous to the forests and forest management over the longer term.

Change is required. But, the problem is too complex and controversial to be adequately addressed by administrations or Congresses without initial guidance. At present, national forest management is not likely to loom large on congressional radar as wars, the need for jobs, and dealing with budget deficits take up all the political oxygen in the halls of Congress and the White House.

On the other hand, the ongoing shock of deep economic recession, which began in 2008, when coupled with unsustainable budget deficits and stubbornly high unemployment could constitute a wake-up call—and a golden opportunity—for more coherent management of the national forests.

So, the old recurrent question, “for whom and for what” from Marion Clawson’s, The Federal Lands Revisited (1975) should the national forests be managed, resurfaces and begs answers suitable to new circumstances.

The first Forest Service chief, Gifford Pinchot (1947), recognized that each generation should define “the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run” for themselves.

As ecosystem management becomes, through trial and error, more clearly defined, it will be increasingly obvious that people, their vision, needs, and dreams, must be included in the woof and warp of ecosystem management’s fabric. The “for whom and for what” question(s) must be answered anew as generations come and go and circumstances change.

It should be understood that manipulations of ecosystems for the benefit of Homo sapiens, while essential, is fraught with both opportunity and danger, in both the short and long term. At the beginning of the 21st century, there is no alternative to utilizing natural resources, and that will be forever the case. Managers of the Forest Service are charged with providing for human needs while conserving the long-term productivity of the ecosystems involved. Continuous learning from experimentation and experience provides the ability to make informed adaptations in management. It is pointless to yell at the tide of humanity—and its needs—to stop and recede.

The key to “intelligent tinkering” with the natural world is to learn from past experiences, develop new knowledge, and make continuous adjustments. Such has always been so and will ever be so. Live and learn— or die.

A New Public Land Law Review Commission?

Honest, clear, and open communication requires good manners, which seem increasingly scarce in today’s public and political discourse. Successful long-term management of national forests depends on rational compromise(s) routinely revisited and renegotiated. The extant Gordian knot of laws, regulations, and court decisions has rendered coherent, effective, predictable, economically rational national forest management increasingly difficult and irrational; hence, intolerable in the long run. It is likely that the situation, at least initially, is too complex to be dealt with intelligently, or effectively, by a Congress too often seemingly at war with itself or the administration. Some other entity must first plow

“If we are to sustain the legacy that it has been our privilege to enjoy, it is essential that people of principle and idealism respond to the current iteration of the perpetual crisis in public land management.…” — Jim Posewitz new ground and develop a starting point for sorely needed change.

In 1962, Senator Wayne Aspinall of Colorado requested President John F. Kennedy to appoint a commission to review public land laws and make recommendations.

Four years later (1964), the Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC) was established, then delivered its report in 1970. It provided a blueprint for development of legislation governing management of public lands. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) emerged from that effort. Unfortunately, these new laws added to the confusion, and legal entanglements increased.

In 1994, the Seventh American Forest Congress—a national meeting of forestry leaders, conservationists and policymakers convened to develop a shared

vision for the future of America’s forests— noted worsening discord, confusion, and dysfunction in public land management. The group saw a train wreck looming and made recommendations to avoid the consequences.

Somehow, either the handoff was fumbled or nobody picked up the baton. Or the combatants—preservationists and extractors of natural resources—thought total victory was in their grasps. Or perhaps the report was a classic case of premature cognition. In 2008, the National Commission on Science and Sustainable Forestry made the same points.

But, again, no one in power seized the momentary opportunity, missing a prime opportunity to clear up the continuing confusion and turmoil.

Yet, those efforts could serve to inform another, now more timely and sorely needed, effort to revoke confusing and confounding legislation, and develop streamlined inclusive

law that clarifies the Forest Service’s mission; streamlines decision making; protects national forests, minimizes court involvement; stabilizes flows of raw materials; helps support and stabilize associated rural communities; creates a more stable and predictable atmosphere for multiple-use management; and provides for sources of revenue. The worsening political and fiscal state of the nation demands new vision for management of the public estate—especially our national forests.

The task of such a commission would be much simpler if it concentrated on a single agency—the Forest Service.

Of Gordian Knots and Certain Trumpets

Today, the national forests are increasingly viewed by some as a liability—economic, political, social, and ecological—rather than an asset. National forests should be

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 21

increasing in value as populations increase and forest and rangelands in private ownership are increasingly fragmented while “no trespassing” signs blossom like flowers in the spring.

One of two approaches to that problem seems possible, perhaps likely. The first is to continue to pick around the edges with clarifying adjustments in applicable laws.

That approach, if past is prologue, will entail long, drawn-out processes of adjusting myriad laws—and making new laws piecemeal. Such is likely to have predictable consequences; after all, we have been down that road before.

Or, it can be realized that picking, prodding, poking at, and adding to the Gordian knot could and should be replaced by a bold stroke that cleaves the knot. Past efforts to address management of public lands provide insights into reform and why previous efforts have failed. There are only two options—learn to love and appreciate the Gordian knot either as having essentially brought active management to an end or to break new ground. The second will, sooner or later, become mandatory as we struggle with reducing public debt (which will, in the end, involve reducing federal expenditures while increasing revenues). A revised approach to national forest management could contribute to the solution, but only if the Gordian knot is severed, the mission clarified, and achievement of management objectives facilitated.

That task is too complex to be effectively addressed by Congress or the administration without some help. Preliminary efforts by a carefully selected group of knowledgeable individuals experienced in the management of natural resources arena, public land law, and administration of land management agencies, should be charged with developing potential solutions with associated benefits and costs. Those assigned should complete the task in a year or less, given the information and experience already at hand.

Recommendations should focus on revisions of present laws (including repeal of those that are not current with extant situations, redundant, or are not in synch with other applicable laws) and new laws that clearly define the mission and the expectations for the Forest Service. The best of the spectrum of old laws should be incorporated 22 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

into new laws so as to clarify intent. Ideally, the result would be the certain trumpet to guide the management of the national forests and the Forest Service.

Land-use planning should be a meaningful guide to management action and funding and achieved within a year at much less cost. Before embarking on new efforts in planning, it is critical to determine why such planning has failed so miserably and shortcomings rectified. Flexibility should be a component to allow forest managers the ability to deal with sudden alteration in conditions such as fires, markets, economics, and insect and disease outbreaks.

New sources of revenues should be explored and instituted. As examples, grazing fees should be adjusted at regular intervals to reflect market conditions on similar private lands, and user fees for recreational activities should be explored, such as fees for hunting access. Methods of dispute resolution, short of resorting to the courts, should be developed. Perhaps those that challenge the agency in court should, when they lose, be held liable for damages, which can be significant in terms of legal costs and delays in executing scheduled operations.

The new instructions should prioritize the importance of factors bearing on the Forest Service’s decisions—environmental questions, jobs, welfare of local communities, monetary returns to the treasury and counties, balance of trade, water flows, clearly defined tradeoffs, etc. Besides the author, Forest Service Chief Emeritus R. Max Peterson has also put forth public land management suggestions to correct the shortcomings of previous commissions. Some of those suggestions include: 1.) There will be a limited time for execution of six months to one year. The report will be delivered to Congress and the president at the beginning of a new Congress so as to be sheltered from the every second-year fascination with elections.

2.) The key members will work full-time on the project.

3.) Commission members will be compensated at the rate of the highest level of the senior executive service.

4.) Support staff will be made available as requested by the chairperson.

5.) The effort will begin with recognition that there are problems that demand adjustments in laws and regulations.

6.) Results will take the form of potential alternative courses of action packaged as legislation or amendments to existing law(s), ready for introduction.

7.) Clarity of purpose, intent, and required process will be of paramount importance, with limited potential for court interpretation.

8. Efficiency of management (in both time and money) will be of paramount concern.

9.) An arbitrations process to handle disputes short of federal court will be determined.

10.) The right to appeal proposed agency actions should be preserved. However, processes will be instituted that prevent or discourage game playing to draw out decisions and impose costs that render pending management infeasible. Those who challenge and lose will be subject to economic penalties.

11.) It will be recognized that the existing panoply of laws, interpreted variously by the courts over the years, has created an ineffective, burdensome, cumbersome, and inefficient system of accountability that thwarts action by the Forest Service and Congress. Such will be corrected.

Jim Posewitz opined: “If we are to sustain the legacy that it has been our privilege to enjoy, it is essential that people of principle and idealism respond to the current iteration of the perpetual crisis in public land management. It is time to not only rise in defense for the national forest system, but also in defense of the custodial agency planted in our culture

by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot.”

Mitch Friedman (executive director of Conservation Northwest) in 2008, selfidentified as a leader of a “green group,” supported Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth’s proposals for collaborative restoration of national forest lands with forest health and collaboration as guiding principles. What seemed a rational and promising approach failed to yield much success. Funding such activities and keeping involved constituencies engaged in attaining support—the key to success—proved intractable.

Even as the “new” Forest Service evolves, it is enmeshed in debilitating political and economic turmoil. These forests and rangelands are too valuable, for social and economic reasons, to remain in relatively unmanaged, increasingly expensive limbo.

Muddling through is wasteful and should not be tolerated, according to Clark and McCool. As former Congressman Pat Williams of Montana plaintively asked, “Forest Service, where did you come from, with what mission, and where, oh where are you headed?” That cogent, well-informed, plaintive question demands answers.

Char Miller, author of Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism, believed that a successful future for the national forests lies in: “…the creation of a cooperative conservation strategy in which local governments and organizations,

in combination with federal land managers, develop forest plans. Proponents of collaboration have been inspired by the National Forest Management Act and the Environmental Species Act that require public participation and interagency coordination. They have also been energized by community-based managerial initiatives promoted at the 1997 Seventh American Forest Congress. …Moreover, although any change in the agency’s land management mission will require internal support from the Forest Service’s leadership and staff, the real locus of any such transformation

lies in Congress and the executive branch…”

Roger A. Sedjo recognized that the Forest Service “…no longer controls national forest policy. Instead, mandatory provisions of the law and regulations…mean that the regional and local landscapes, watersheds, and their resources are now the focus of attention…the Forest Service … now lacks the institutional capacity and authority to fully develop and implement ecosystem conservation agenda and resource management programs…due to lack of ability …to interpret and respond effectively to the public’s priorities…”

Enough already, it is way past time to answer those old, up-to-now intractable questions. The future of the national forests and the Forest Service rides on the answers.

Obviously, the Forest Service cannot, acting alone, provide such clarity. And, clearly, it is far past time for clarity. Carpe Diem! n

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 23

By Harv Ebers and Ron Thompson

Harv Ebers is the Special Projects Manager for the third largest waste management company in the U.S. and currently alive and well with his special wife Judy. Harv is looking forward to bowhunting again in the Sierra Madres in January of 2012, and many Januaries thereafter.

Š Corbis/ Jami Tarris

Ron Thompson is president of Primero Conservation Outfitters and a Master of Science candidate at Sul Ross State University researching the role of mountain lions in the Trans-Pecos ecoregion of southwest Texas and the Sinaloa thornscrub of Sonora. Contact him at leoneroronatsulross@gmail.com

24 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

I married my lovely Judy in Mexico. Why do these Gringos in this border bar call themselves hunters if they are so darned concerned about crossing a four-strand barbed-wire fence for a deer hunting adventure? Well, maybe the fence is a wall now in places, but it is still a lot easier to hunt Mexico today than to hunt the wilds of Alaska for caribou with a stick bow in the ‘50s. In those days, the Alaskan wilderness adjacent to the small Eskimo village of Glennallen, some 183 miles east of Anchorage, was far more intimidating than any cartel in Mexico.

Since Glenn St. Charles passed, I’m basically the last surviving founding member of the Pope and Young Club. I could sure tell these youngsters what hunting was really like. Wild places, primitive equipment, and just you, your guts and the environment are what hunting is about. Good hunting adventures are hard to find these days.

The Sierra Madre Occidental is an unforgiving mother of a mountain range that initially rises out of the northern Mexican state of Sonora. As an extension of the Continental Divide and Rocky Mountains, it runs north-south from the U. S. border near Douglas, Arizona and ends in the Mexican state of Guanajuato.

Because of its latitudinal length and precipitous points reaching over 3,300 meters, it has a variety of vegetative communities and a diversity of endemic wildlife that befuddles a North American biologist’s mind. There is a unique birthing in the Sierra Madre in Sonora, an outcome of the Sierra Madrean oak woodland’s sympatric relationship where it interfaces with the Sinoloan thornscrub. The result is a convergence of very different ecosystems that helps rank Mexico as third in the world for biodiversity1.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 25

Hunters have protected the jaguar on 12 ranches by buying deer permits, killing a few deer on a sustainable basis and then leaving. In exchange, the ranchers agree not to kill jaguars. The ranchers have bought trail cameras with their income from hunting and can now show they have at least 12 different jaguars roaming around, up from six just a few years ago.

An unusual combination, saving the predators that eat the game we care about - bowhunters putting up the funds to save the last remaining breeding population of jaguar in North America while getting the opportunity to hunt Coues’ whitetail of the Sonora Desert. In northern Mexico, the three main threats to jaguars have been described as illegal predator control as the result of livestock depredation, illegal hunting and depletion of prey.

26 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

These guys look adventuresome enough.

Some have hunted dangerous wildlife all over the world, but I doubt half of them can even sit a horse like this old Missouri livestock hauler, let alone kill one of the smallest and smartest deer species in North America. I have been told there are jaguars, neo-tropical river otters, and boa constrictors where we are going, and the proceeds from this bar full of storytellers are going to help fund conservation efforts for the jaguar. We should just donate the money we are spending on booze tonight and we could save all the jaguars in Mexico. Haven’t hunters always paid for wildlife conservation? The only reason we still have wolves, grizzly bears, and mountain lions in the U.S. is because hunters have historically supported the conservation of their prey. The Boone and Crockett Club and Pope and Young Club support the conservation of all species.

In northern Mexico, the three main threats to jaguars have been described as illegal predator control as the result of livestock depredation, illegal hunting and depletion of prey2, 3, 4, 5. The northernmost known breeding population of jaguars in North America is in northeastern Sonora, Mexico2,4. They are listed as endangered in

the United States and threatened in Mexico.

Now that you, the reader, can visualize the place and are informed about the target species of this article, ask yourself this question: “Why do I sleep with my head against the wall?”

The book They Never Surrendered sure grabbed my attention about the country where we will be hunting. I did not know that, even after my birth date, the Apache people were still trying to survive in this remote and beautiful landscape with wolves, jaguars and grizzly bears. Now a bunch of us bowhunters, mostly members of the Pope and Young Club and some members of the Boone and Crockett Club, are about to enter into it and hunt it with the same primitive archery equipment. If President Calvin Coolidge had not put a stop to Americans participating in the “hunt for the last remaining Apache” there would have been another dark mark on us as just another intolerant race of people.

We sleep with our heads against the wall possibly because of an evolutionarily primeval fear of large carnivores dragging us out of a cave by our heads. Are lights going on? When dragged by our feet, we at least have a chance to grab a weapon as we go out

the entrance. So why do hunters as a fraternity and sorority, and fast-declining subpopulation akin to the last Apache in the Sierra, still have such a divergence of opinions about large carnivores? This divergence rarely mentions the ecological value of carnivores to us humans and to the ecosystems within which they have evolved to maintain—ecosystems we too have evolved from within. In a recent article in Science, titled the “Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth”6, there is a quote that hunters and non-hunters alike should sit up and take notice of: “What escapes the eye…. is a much more insidious kind of extinction: the extinction of interactions.”—Daniel H. Janzen The Rio Aros is sure a beautiful river— reminds me of some of the Alaskan streams I have crossed, uh, naked. I can even find river otter and jaguar tracks here on the banks. Not even a contrail overhead from a jet since we have been here. Hard to imagine this is the last free-flowing river in all of Sonora. Heard the Canadians are trying to dam this river above here so they can develop a copper mine. The price of copper will be the destructive force for ruination of this beautiful river and all the wildlife that depends on it. I believe Aldo Leopold hunted just up river from here—and with a stick bow no less—called it the Rio Gavalon. He was my kind of hunter. Then the famous jaguar-hunting brothers, Clel and Dell Lee, brought their hounds and clients into this exact spot to hunt jaguars. They had to pack in here by horses and mules in the late 1930s, at night no less, in July, as it was too hot for their hounds to travel during the day. Why would anyone come down here in the summer? Only hunters would consider such an arduous trip for such a valued trophy.

It has been proven that the loss of large apex (top of the food chain) carnivores, like the jaguar, result in causative ecological cascades within highly evolved, yet intricately connected, ecosystems as predator-prey relationships are altered or entirely eliminated by human activities7,8,9. The authors of the Science magazine article present a thorough and science-based case that we are again in the early to middle stages of another extinction—the “sixth great extinction.” In other words, soon it may no longer matter where we place our heads at night. So why can’t hunters, as top predators if we need to anthropomorphize, fully appreciate the true role top carnivores play in the environment?

Our natural value system has shifted from one closely associated with the living world around us to a world supported by technology and measured by monetary gains in the stock market. If an organism has no value to us monetarily, than we tend to relegate it to the role of a destructive force, in competition with us for food or any related outdoor-based business, such as guiding. Trophic cascades have yet to affect a major population and essentially have no real value to our day-today lives and are thus viewed as processes that we feel we can accomplish better with a bow or rifle.

Looking across the Rio Aros I see the same vegetation and land forms. Yet, the property is owned by an environmental group, funded in part by U.S. non-profits supported by our sportsmen’s dollars. They bought a few ranches down here and are declaring they are protecting jaguars with a proclamation that the area is now a “jaguar preserve.” Those three ranches would never entirely support one jaguar in this country. Heck, they removed the livestock and then the neighboring rancher immediately Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 27

ABOVE: Dab Willems with his Coues’ deer, one of the successes of the trip. TOP RIGHT: These bow hunters proved to be better hunters than expected: 16 for 25 is good hunt success for even a firearms hunt. BOTTOM RIGHT: Harv (right) with Dale Hall and his buck.

experienced jaguar livestock predation problems. We met him at a jaguar meeting in town. I wonder how he handled that situation just on the other side of a four-strand barbed-wire fence? Ranchers are resilient in this country. I see the strychnine bottles hanging in the trees at the ranches.

Ranchers do not want to go to sleep each night worrying that their profit margins will be eaten by a predator. I was told at a rancher’s meeting that the preservationists are planning to buy more ranches and the folks in the communities are worried about what will support their local economies when all the cows are gone. As hunters, we have protected the jaguar here on 12 ranches by just buying deer permits, killing a few deer on a sustainable basis and then leaving. In exchange, the ranchers agree not to kill jaguars. The ranchers have bought trail cameras with their income from hunting and can now show they have at least 12 different jaguars roaming around, up from six just a few years ago. I think this is an adaptation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. If only the Mexican states, instead of the Mexican federal government, managed their wildlife; maybe they should change their constitution.

In an essay “Beyond Wolf Advocacy, Toward Realistic Policies for Carnivore Conservation” Valerius Geist, Ph.D., states: “Predator conservation requires a well thought-out Continental Carnivore Conservation Strategy negotiated between Canada and the United States within the context of a Terrestrial Wildlife Conservation Treaty. While the primary purpose of such a treaty would be to enshrine the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in treaty law, another objective would be to negotiate a continental Endangered Species agreement….”10. Once again, Mexico has been

left out of the real definition of North America wildlife management and conservation—and funding consideration for conservation initiatives. If the past policy of large carnivore and prairie dog extirpation by the U. S. government had not been fully implemented by government agents working in Mexico, the grizzly bear, Mexican wolf and black-footed ferret would not be three of just five mammal species now extirpated in “North America” south of the U.S. international border. Should we not take a more active role to assist in returning the very species we funded to be poisoned, shot, and trapped towards extinction?

I think if the jaguars were given some monetary value, Mexico residents would be hand-feeding them down here to protect them. Of course that means managing them on a sustainable basis within the limits of their food resources, which would include cows. The study I read indicated they kill a lot of livestock, especially during the dry season.

They do not yet know the real impact of jaguars on the native prey or livestock because there is a great resistance to studying them by the preserve builders. Biologists have radio-collared jaguars all over South America and southern Mexico. Maybe some of these folks do not want to really know the truth about the impacts of jaguars to the ranchers.

That information could actually help conserve and protect the jaguar from the illegal indirect killing when the ranchers have to remove the occasional livestock-killing leon.

Our natural value system has shifted from one closely associated with the living world around us to a world supported by technology and measured by monetary gains in the stock market.

28 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

India is an example of a failed, yet well-planned preserve system that was designed strictly for a large carnivore—the tiger—to survive into the future. Entire communities were moved to establish the system.

Preserves are now believed to be too small in size to meet genetic introgression and lack connecting corridors that allow for longranging genetically important dispersing immigrants to travel between preserves.

When people need natural resources just to survive, they will invade a protected area as quickly as an unprotected area. In India, armed guards are employed to keep recolonizing humans out of the preserves, but special societal bands of camouflaged homesteaders now hold major ground, and game rangers are afraid to rout out the invaders. Corruption cases, investigated by forensic geneticists, have demonstrated that an entire preserve’s tiger population was killed and sold into the medicinal black market. In Raymond Bonner’s classic book, At the Hand of Man, he makes a valid point that protected area establishment for endangered species will not assure the survival of a large carnivore species. Bonner uses the cheetah, another apex carnivore, in Africa in place of the tiger to make his point that if all wildlife species in an ecosystem are to thrive, the top carnivores must have an economic value. Bonner suggests that it be in the form of regulated hunting. Where the cheetah has been protected, it was subsequently killed indiscriminately by farmers, just as jaguars are today throughout their range from the northern most breeding population in Sonora, Mexico, south throughout South America, where they are “protected” from sport hunting. Nowhere within the range of the jaguar can you lawfully hunt a jaguar with a valid CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) permit. CITES is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

it will be the ruination of us as humans. With Glenn St. Charles gone, I missed him at the 50th anniversary of the Pope and Young Club this year. Gone too are the Apache from these Sierras and the wolf and grizzly. As the last founding member of the Pope and Young Club, I truly thank God for my fellow hunters and friends—all family in my book. Thank God for country like the Sierra Madre—Mother Earth. This trip reminds me that hunters can, and should, do more for each other and for all species that are so important to our natural world. Hunters have always paid for wildlife conservation. Now, if we could just get the rest of society to do the same. You know, it is kind of nice being the Last Man Standing. n

References and Notes 1. R. Valdez et al. (2009) 2. Lopez-Gonzalez & Brown (2002) 3. Rosas-Rosas & Lopez-Soto (2002) 4. Valdez et al. (2002) 5. Rosas-Rosas et al. (2008) 6. Estes et al. (2011) 7. E. T. Duffy, Ecol. Lett. 6. 680 (2003) 8. D. R. Strong, K. T. Frank, Annu. Rev. Environ.

Resour. 35, 1 (2010) 9. O. J. Schmitz, D. Hawlena, G. C. Trussell, Ecol. Lett.

13, 1199 (2010) 10. V. Geist, (2009)

Well, it was a good hunt with good Mexican food cooked over hot mesquite fires and a little shot of bacanora in the evening with good friends in a wild and remote country. These bowhunters were better hunters than I thought they would be: 16 for 25 is good hunt success for even a firearms hunt. I can tell they are anxious to return to their country, their homes, and families. I remember I would be gone for a month without a word with my family while hunting in Alaska. Now hunters walk around with satellite phones and even check their emails while sitting in their blinds. Damn technology, Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 29

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION Knowledge Base | Page 32 B&C Professors’ Corner | Page 34 Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow | Page 36

F

© Ron Niebrugge/wildnatureimages

rom her remote outpost in British Columbia, Winifred B. Kessler fires up the debate about taking education to where students live. Can a wildlife graduate who has never stepped foot on campus be as well prepared as those who obtain a more conventional education? Time will tell.

In the third installment in a series of essays by the Boone and Crockett Professors, Paul Krausman discusses how sound policy related to conservation can only prosper if it is based on science and more importantly how this knowledge is disseminated to policymakers. Zachary E. Lowe’s article about the changing faces in wildlife management and how the Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow program is doing to ensure that wildlife managers understand the important role hunters serve in conservation today.

30 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 31

KNOWLEDGE BASE Taking Education to Where Students Live In 1993 I joined the faculty of the brandnew University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) to build its programs Winifred B. Kessler help in natural resources Professional member management. One of Boone and Crockett Club my first duties was to meet with leaders of the Nisga’a First Nation in the remote Nass Valley of northwestern British Columbia. They had invited a small delegation of UNBC educators to visit a special site to discuss an idea. Getting there required multiple hours of slow, bumpy driving along dirt tracks in rugged coastal mountains. Finally we emerged at Kitsault, at the head of a long fjord called Alice Arm. There we found a small town complete with a school, swimming pool, shopping center, and apartment buildings. The eerie thing was the total absence of humans, except for a small maintenance crew.

This was my closest brush ever with the “Twilight Zone!” It turned out the site had been developed for a mine which quickly shut down due to a downturn in global markets.

The Nisga’a have an extraordinary commitment to higher education for their youth, regarding it as key to the community’s future success. They saw UNBC, the province’s first university outside of Vancouver and Victoria, as the solution to their highereducation needs. Some families were fine

with sending their young people to the “big city” of Prince George to complete degree programs. But for others, concerns ranged from adversity the students might face (homesickness, culture shock, exposure to alcohol and drugs, etc.) to the hardships on grandparents, aunts, and others who depended on young family members for game and fish harvests, firewood gathering, driving to medical appointments, and many other services.

Their idea was this: couldn’t UNBC use the facilities at Kitsault to offer classes so that residents could earn their degrees without leaving the Nass Valley?

Opening a second, highly-remote campus was impossible. However, the notion of taking education to where students live was starting to materialize by means of fiberoptic linkages to remote communities. At first, “distance delivery” meant that students could participate in regular university classes through phone and Internet connections.

Next came classes specially designed for online delivery, and eventually entire degree programs. Today, the Nisga’a and others can complete a bachelor of arts degree without leaving the Nass Valley!

What about disciplines such as wildlife that have significant laboratory and field components? The evolution has been similar, starting with individual, non-lab courses offered online by the universities. Next came professional graduate degrees in natural resource fields, designed to strengthen the policy and administrative credentials of midcareer people. Next came “hybrid” undergraduate programs, with part of the

©istockphoto.com/Murphy_Shewchuk

Remote areas such as the Nass Valley in British Columbia have benefited from the expanding online education options.

32 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

coursework offered online and the rest, including lab and field components, completed on campus.

New ground was broken by Oregon State University recently with the offering of a Bachelor of Science degree program in fisheries and wildlife science. Immediately I was skeptical on two accounts. What about the laboratory component, so essential to learning biology? The program solved this by requiring students to complete a year of biology, with labs, at a college or university in the area where they live. Fair enough. But what about the hands-on learning that occurs in techniques classes and field exercises? The solution is that two internships must be completed prior to graduation. Internships put students to work with an agency, non-government organization, business, or other natural resource-related employer where they obtain “practical knowledge, skills, experience, and connections,” either as paid or volunteer staff.

Many colleagues remain doubtful that a wildlife graduate who has never stepped foot on campus can be as well prepared for entering the profession as those who obtain a more conventional education. Others observe that online learning works perfectly well for the generation that grew up with the Internet, and that real-world learning gained through internships likely beats university classes all to heck.

Only time will tell, as the new generation makes its mark in the wildlife profession.

I’ll keep tabs via the Internet from the remote piece of British Columbia where I live. n

The Full Measure Wildlife Conservation.

Big Game Records Keeping.

Hunting Ethics.

The Boone and Crockett Club is dedicated to these fundamental passions. With your financial help, we can pursue them to the fullest measure. By choosing a charitable gift annuity, you can receive a guaranteed lifetime income that is largely tax-free.

Payout rates are high, too, as high as 9.5%. So, anyway you measure it, we both benefit.

“It is natural for me to hold the Boone and Crockett Club in the highest esteem as the founder of the conservation movement in America. My wife and I contribute because we want to see that effort continue.”

- Eldon L. “Buck” Buckner

The Boone and Crockett Club Foundation can help with your plan. Call today: Winton C. Smith, J.D. 1-800-727-1040

Boone and Crockett Club Vice President of Big Game Records, conservationist, rancher, B&C Official Measurer, and philanthropist PHOTO: Buck with his mountain caribou taken near the Klaza River, Yukon Territory, in 2009.

B&C PROFESSORS’ CORNER Sound Biology and Policy – Key Elements in Wildlife Management and Conservation The Boone and Crockett Club’s Professor Program is a growing and important component of wildlife Paul R. Krausman conservation because the programs Professional member Boone and Crockett Club contribute to the education of future Professor of Wildlife Conservation leaders in the wildlife University of Montana profession. This column is the third and final essay examining the role of Boone and Crockett Professors. In the first column (Spring 2011), Dr. Tarla R. Peterson, Professional Member and Boone and Crockett Chair of Wildlife and Conservation at Texas A&M University, introduced the three-part series and discussed how academic research benefited conservation by providing knowledge that could be used in practical and theoretical applications. Dr. William “Bill” Porter, Professional Member and Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation at Michigan State University, followed (Summer 2011) by discussing how we teach and mentor students, especially graduate students, who are the future of the profession. He wrote about the capture of animals (the part all students love) and the analytical work that follows (often loved less, but more important) that allows us to better understand life history characteristics of wildlife. In my opinion, this is the heart and soul of good management; a solid understanding of the conditions responsible for viable wildlife populations. Sound policy related to conservation can only prosper if it is based on science, which is the theme of this essay.

Wildlife management and conservation is complex, often messy, and requires cooperation among all stakeholders. Consider the triad of the profession: wildlife, its habitat, and the human dimensions that influence both. Each of these could be, and often are, separate disciplines. The human dimensions part of the profession includes law, policy, human attitudes, communication, information and education, sociology, economics, and psychology while the other two relate

to biology and an understanding of habitat requirements. Wildlife management is a process that involves all of the disciplines; it would not be successful if any were eliminated.

Thus, describing a “typical wildlifer” would be difficult because of the array of responsibilities involved and the importance of incorporating all of them into the process of management; however, that is what needs to be done for effective management and conservation. For example, consider all of the advances in wildlife management that have been made due to hunting, one of the primary tools used in the profession. Because hunters alter populations, biologists have been able to use harvest rates, or lack thereof, to deter-

U.S., may kill twice as many mammals as birds, and have contributed to wildlife declines and extinctions worldwide) but scientists have not been effective in educating the public about TNR. A key aspect of the B & C Professors program is to instill the importance of effective communication to our students. Without it, the science will not be heard and poor policies will result.

The Wildlife Society (the professional society for wildlife biologists) and others, including Boone and Crockett Fellows, are making scientific data available to policymakers, and policy is slowly changing—changes that would not be made without solid science.

Other exotics (e.g., feral horses, burros, pigs) also alter and destroy wildlife habitat and compete for resources. Only science will be able to lay the foundation for changes to be made in the policies as to how these and other exotics are managed.

All policies are not in the national limelight but are important for direct wildlife management at local and regional levels. For example, Boone and Crockett Fellows at the University of Montana have influenced policy at various levels by providing scientific data to towns and cities on ways to minimize negative wildlife-human interactions; they’ve enhanced techniques to determine the diet of predators of livestock, developed new ways for citizens to participate in data collection in National Parks and elsewhere and have established acceptable ways to translocate large mammals in ranching communities, among others. Most of these will not lead to new laws or acts, but the laws and acts that are passed in relation to these issues will be enhanced by the science that addresses each issue. Developing sound policies is most often accomplished by lawyers and politicians, but they will be operating in a vacuum or with false information generated from emotions that will lead to poor policy if biology is not considered in their deliberations. We all need to work together to enhance wildlife management worldwide, and by educating highly trained scientists, Boone and Crockett Fellows will be welcomed in any policy discussion related to the management and conservation of our wildlife resources. n

Wildlife management and conservation is complex, often messy, and requires cooperation among all stakeholders.

Consider the triad of the profession: wildlife, its habitat, and the human dimensions that influence both.

34 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

mine numerous life history characteristics about populations including survival rates (one of the most important values to understand populations), understanding density dependence and predator/prey relationships, habitat enhancement, and even adaptive management, among others. These aspects of biology have been incorporated into policy in many game and fish departments worldwide to better understand populations.

Wildlife science has also directed (both in support of or opposition to) other policies such as the trap-neuter-release (TNR) program, management of wild horses and burros, endangered species, hunting regulations, climate change, and just about anything in the world of wildlife. The TNR is an unsuccessful attempt to manage the overpopulation of feral cats. The TNR program is endorsed by feral cat advocates but opposed by wildlife scientists. As such, there is controversy as to the utility of TNR programs that is further confused with a mix of money, politics, emotions, and animal rights. Simply put, feral cats are a threat to native wildlife and their habitats (i.e. cats are the most significant invasive species affecting birds, account for the most anthropogenic causes of bird mortality in the

LIGHTWEIGHT, SLIM, HIGH PRECISION Z3 AND Z5. THE 1 INCH RIFLESCOPES

A wide field of view or high magnification for precise long range shots: The slender profile provide both of these and its light weight, the perfect companion for demanding hunting trips.

Z5 66 % GREATER FIELD OF VIEW* 66% GREATER MAGNIFICATION RANGE* Percentages relate to a unit with 3x zoom

Z3 COMPACT, RUGGED, RELIAbLE

SEE THE UNSEEN

WWW.SWAROVSKIOPTIK.COM SWAROVSKI OPTIK NORTH AMERICA LTD. 2 Slater Road, Cranston, RI 02920 Tel. 800-426-3089, Fax 401-734-1800 info@swarovskioptik.us

Conservation Leaders for

Tomorrow

by Zachary E. Lowe, Ph.D.

Š Donald M. Jones

Director of Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (housed within the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation)

36 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

and the

omorrow

Changing Faces of Wildlife Management

Who manages our wildlife resources today, and what drives their passion for their chosen field?

To answer this, you must first look at how wildlife management in North America has changed during the past 50 years. Following the “birth” of modern wildlife management in North America in the 1920s and ‘30s, most of those attracted to the new profession were from rural backgrounds, well-versed in hunting or angling, and male. They set about the important goals of growing game populations, regulating harvest, improving habitat, and developing the needed science to ply their trade.

Thus the stage was set for the profession’s first halfcentury of leadership in wildlife conservation and habitat management.

When my generation entered the profession in the 1990s, things had dramatically changed from what a young wildlifer would have found 50 years prior. The profession has been shaped by policy developments, scientific discoveries, and public engagement revolving around wildlife, natural resources management, and environmentalism. The profession’s responsibilities have diversified and evolved, and so, too, has the wildlife workforce. As new backgrounds and skills were brought to bear, there emerged an apparent divide between traditional wildlife management ideologies and modern expectations.

This is the story of Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (CLfT), an education and professional development program dedicated to narrowing this divide in the wildlife profession.

Confronting the Generation Gap

I became aware of the “wildlife professional divide” while working as a wildlife habitat extension specialist at Purdue University. My job responsibilities were evenly split between applied research and outreach education, with much of my work focused on the nuts and bolts of habitat management. Daily I worked with wildlife professionals and practitioners in the agencies, non-government organizations, and private sector who performed the work of wildlife habitat management. Over time, it became clear that what

employers expected and desired of new employees was not always available from the pool of graduates.

At Purdue, my frequent interactions with students revealed what many others had already noticed. Not long ago most wildlife students possessed skills and know-how acquired through hunting, fishing, farming, and working outdoors. The value of these outdoor experiences was taken for granted at the time, a sort of “institutional knowledge” common in previous generations of wildlifers. I observed that students today often lack the know-how that their predecessors obtained from hands-on experiences. Many seem unprepared—even at risk of causing harm—due to a lack of basic field skills, orientation to the outdoors, and awareness of rural culture. Perhaps more concerning was the students’ lack of understanding about hunting and hunters, who remain key constituents of the wildlife profession and the economic engine for so many conservation efforts.

Increased urbanization and decreasing hunter numbers are shaping a society that is disconnected from wildlands, food production, and wildlife pursuits. This trend is evident in the young people today who enter the natural resource management fields with little or no exposure to hunting or other consumptive uses of wildlife.

They arrive on campus ready to devote their careers to wildlife science and conservation. However, their wildlife frame of reference is a non-consumptive view shaped primarily by the Discovery Channel, Disney, and the Internet. Many have had meaningful and highly formative outdoor experiences such as bird watching, summer camps, wildlife hikes, or visits to parks and nature centers. The knowledge and skills gained, however, are very different from what their predecessors entered the profession with 30 years ago. This “generation gap” has been addressed in reports by The Wildlife Society (the profession’s premier scientific and professional organization) and the various agencies and organizations that employ wildlifers.

Shouldn’t the universities strive to remedy these shortages of field skills and practical know-how? Unfortunately, this is less likely than ever. The demands of an ever-broadening ecological workforce are driving change in the natural resources curricula. With more time devoted to climate change, genomics, human dimensions, and preparing for graduate study, the mainstays of a traditional wildlife education such as habitat management, taxonomy, and field techniques now receive less time in the curriculum. Graduates of the top universities typically possess a broad understanding of key ecological and environmental principles, but may lack depth and practical skills in any one specific discipline. They are expected to fill in the gaps through work experience, internships, or graduate study in a specialized field.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 37

The foundations of wildlife management can be a casualty of these curricular changes.

Therefore, the history, culture, and economics of hunting—and the important roles that hunters serve in conservation today—remain unexplored by many graduates who aspire to manage natural resources.

Society’s Expectations: A Moving Target

Are today’s wildlife students inferior compared to those of the past? The short answer is no, not at all. The best among them are bright, well-grounded in ecology, and far more “computer savvy” than most of us ever hope to be. They have a familiar passion for the natural world and are poised to bring fresh new perspectives, talents, and technologies into the profession.

And that is a good thing, because the demands of the job and society’s expectations have also evolved in ways that some senior-level biologists may find difficult and distracting to what they perceive as the core job of conservation.

Today’s state and federal wildlife agencies have an expanded scope of operations that goes well beyond the nuts and bolts of game and nongame management. The regulation, monitoring, and sustainability of wildlife populations remain important responsibilities. In addition, agencies are challenged with intricate ecological, environmental, and social issues that exceed the bounds and methods of traditional wildlife management.

To keep pace with society’s expectations, agencies must devote time and resources to emerging challenges including ecosystem services, “green” industry, marketing, humanwildlife conflicts, and workforce recruitment and development. These demands reflect a society that has experienced major shifts in the past half-century, with a complexity of expectations placed on natural resource management.

In some ways the graduates of today are better equipped than their predecessors for the diverse and evolving demands of the profession. They graduate with confidence in solid ecological theory and up-to-date technological skills obtained through their university education. But as well, they may be ill-prepared to succeed in a profession in which understanding of the historical and cultural context is extremely important. The university experience did not teach them that “there is this whole culture (even beyond hunting) at the heart of wildlife conservation and management that you must

engage with to be successful. Without understanding the complexities of hunting and its specific role in wildlife conservation, you are at a real disadvantage.”

Having realized this gap between education and practical management skills, what could I do besides lament? Opportunity came in 2008 when I trained as an instructor for an emerging education program, Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (CLfT). The impetus for this program came from agency administrators, professional biologists, the hunting constituency, and even university faculty. They all saw a real need to connect the new generation of wildlife professionals—those who someday will fill leadership positions in the natural resources—with the

and its impact on conservation.” Its highly interactive curriculum is derived from the leading science and theory of natural resources administration and wildlife management. Currently CLfT is active with 45 universities, 25 state agencies, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—and still growing.

CLfT workshops no longer are limited to university students. Because of CLfT’s impact and popularity, state and federal agencies requested that we offer programs for their current employees who might also benefit from the opportunity. Thus, outstanding early and mid-career professionals are also selected for participation in CLfT. Eligible participants must be identified as talented leaders who have no firsthand hunting experience, or otherwise have minimal exposure to the culture and practice of hunting. This highly selective program enlists academic advisors and agency administrators to help identify outstanding candidates. There is no cost to the participants. The Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation shoulders the costs of running CLfT with the assistance of our key partners, host facilities, and the generosity of dedicated conservationists.

CLfT’s instructors, now numbering over 150 nationally, represent the very best of what the community of wildlife professionals and hunter-conservationists has to offer. To qualify as an instructor, one must be an experienced hunter, a dedicated conservationist, and an expert communicator.

Currently 44 percent of instructors are agency personnel, 41 percent have university positions, and the remaining 15 percent are hunter-conservationists who earn their living as tradesmen, retailers, consultants, stay-athome parents, or any number of occupations that may not be directly associated with natural resources management. That these volunteers find the experience rewarding is evidenced by their continuing participation from year to year. The benefits run both ways.

While helping prepare the participants for success in the profession, instructors are enriched by new perspectives and knowledge brought to the program by the participants who represent the best and brightest.

Teams of 10-12 CLfT instructors at each workshop use open and interactive presentation styles that promote critical review of information and an exchange of perspectives. Topics vary widely and include hunter demographics, motivations and ethics; the role of hunting in society; firearms handling; and wildlife ecology. CLfT doesn’t avoid tough questions or sugar-coat

...the history, culture, and economics of hunting–and the important roles that hunters serve in conservation today–remain unexplored by many graduates who aspire to manage natural resources.

38 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

culture and constituents of hunting. Eighteen months after becoming an instructor for the program I had the opportunity to leave my university post and work full-time as the national coordinator for CLfT. Today I proudly serve as the program’s director.

Crossing the Divide

The Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow program was established in 2004 through a partnership of the Wildlife Management Institute and the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation. The well-designed pilot programs generated immediate praise from participants, instructors, and participating universities. When I came on staff in 2009, CLfT set out to fine-tune the curriculum, broaden opportunities, and create a standardized conservation education platform that could be extended to other locations across the U.S. The CLfT program isn’t designed to be a hunting program; it is a conservation education program that deals with the role of hunters and consumptive uses of wildlife in relation to wildlife conservation and society. CLfT’s educational goal is to “identify future and current leaders of the natural resource profession who do not hunt and provide them with an understanding of the diverse values and important roles of hunting

controversial issues; we simply rely on the best current information and the expertise of our instructors to deliver the program. The credit for success goes to our dedicated instructors who tirelessly deliver the educational components of CLfT. Working with trained CLfT instructors, workshop participants have the opportunity to experience a variety of field activities relating to firearms safety and practical skills required by hunters, including the option of a mentored upland bird hunt. Many participants report that the hunt, paired with the classroom discussions, is a highly valuable experience that broadens their understanding and perceptions.

CLfT is not in any way intended to train or otherwise recruit people into hunting. The purpose is to provide current and future leaders with a personal and meaningful orientation to hunting and hunters, who are key stakeholders and partners in wildlife conservation. The hunting experience is a tangible part of this orientation.

“Offering our participants an opportunity to experience the hunt exposes them to these skill sets and allows them to better understand and relate to hunting through experiential learning,” says CLfT National Coordinator David Windsor. Experiencing the hunt registers with participants in various ways, ranging from a purely academic learning experience to a high-energy outing with deeply personal meaning.

Over the years, our participants have related the hunting exercise to be just one of many lasting experiences they gain during a workshop. A recent student from a southcentral CLfT workshop offered that “the hunt was different than I thought it would be, I see how it can get exciting and I’m glad I went. I now have a better appreciation for the process of hunting and its contribution to conservation because I was finally exposed to it hands-on. The significance of the activity is hence more profound.” Regardless of what impression the hunt or any other curriculum component has on the participants, the important thing is that people completing CLfT are better able to grasp what hunting and hunters can mean for conservation and their ultimate career responsibilities.

essential component of wildlife conservation, and of the importance of hunting in the culture and economic fabric of our society.

Seeing the CLfT program in action, a chief of wildlife from an eastern state shared his impression that “this program is a real active tenant positively addressing these things [an education gap]...the interactions the participants have here make stronger natural resource managers for the future.”

This comment was affirmed recently in an unsolicited email from a Midwestern agency division chief whose employee attended a workshop last year. He offered, “in case you are interested in feedback on your program, [our employee] loved it last year. He stated that he has a much deeper understanding and appreciation of hunting and the culture surrounding the sport.”

A recent female graduate from the doctorate program at the University of Wisconsin offered that “the instructors are incredibly knowledgeable. They challenged us to think critically and opened up their personal and professional knowledge to us. I would recommend this program to anyone looking to gain an increased awareness and knowledge about conservation and the link/ application of hunting.”

These are a just a few of the many comments we receive about the program.

They help us envision the impact that CLfT may have in the future of conservation.

So far over 400 participants have completed the program. We know that demand exceeds supply. But given the need to wisely use available funding and resources, “controlled growth” must be our mantra for expansion. In the year ahead, CLfT will conduct 14 workshops at nine locations across the U.S., providing professional development opportunities for approximately 240 top candidates in the profession. It’s the aim of CLfT to ensure that tomorrow’s leaders understand the historic role of hunters and hunting in wildlife management—and most importantly, to envision how the hunting heritage fits into the future of conservation.

To learn more about the history, impact, and future of CLfT please visit www.clft.org. n

Is CLfT Making a Difference?

Zachary Lowe, Ph.D. is the Director of Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (housed within the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation) and an Adjunct Professor at Purdue University within the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources. A longtime hunter and wildlife enthusiast, he obtained his education from Purdue University.

Only time will reveal the exact impact of this program, but in the meantime the participants and their colleagues can provide insight into how we are doing. All CLfT participants complete an anonymous exit survey upon program completion. Ninetyfive percent report a deeper understanding of why regulated and ethical hunting is an

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 39

LESS THAN 200 HATS REMAIN! Order your B&C limited edition hat exclusively crafted for friends of the Boone and Crockett Club. Supplies are limited – get one while they last!

This handsome, low-profile, six-panel hat in brown pigment-dyed cotton is sure to be a hat you will wear again and again. The fabric has the look of oil cloth without the weight. The front of the hat features an embroidered stone felt appliqué of the classic Boone and Crockett Club medallion logo and the side features “Limited Edition 2011” embroidery. Also includes a velcro closure for a self-adjusting fit. This hat is only available to current Boone and Crockett Club Associates, Members, and Official Measurers. Once this limited edition runs out, no more will be available until the 2012 Limited Edition hat is released next year.

B&C 2011 Limited Edition Hat | HT2011 | $24.95

Celsius Vest

Not an Associate?

Sign up with this order and be eligible to order the limited edition hat or Sitka Gear.

90% Jacket

NEW! Stratus Jacket

The Celsius vest’s quiet soft-shell is designed with R-value in mind. Backed with high-loft fleece, this vest is designed to keep you warm without bulk, while sitting motionless on the stand.

Available M-XXL

The 90% is a mid-weight jacket built to work with you while powering up hills.

Designed for the active hunter, the 90% Jacket is built of a durable, and breathable, 2-way stretch, DWR treated soft shell material. Available M-XXL

The Stratus Jacket is your go-to, midweight jacket, built with WINDSTOPPER fabric, for quiet, close encounters.

Featuring a new concealment pattern, Forest, developed by GORE. Available L-XXL

VSCLS | $149.95

JKS90 | $249.95

JKSST | $249.95

Call 406/542-1888 during regular business hours to order, or fax the enclosed order form to 406/542-0784.

All Sitka Jackets and Vests are available only to current B&C Associates, B&C Members, and B&C Official Measurers. Each item has been customized with a B&C label and includes free monogramming by request.

40 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

We hope that you have enjoyed your association with Boone and Crockett Club and have been able to see what the Club is doing to protect hunting, promote wildlife conservation, and educate the public. We also hope that you will take this opportunity to join our growing list of Lifetime Associates who have stepped up their support of the Club’s work.

Boone and Crockett Club introduces a new Lifetime Associate membership fee for our supporters aged 65 and over. Those individuals who are 65 and over can now upgrade to a Lifetime Associate at the discounted rate of $750. The regular fee for individuals under 65 remains at $1,000.

Please Welcome Our Newest B&C Lifetime Associates 761. Nathan Savage – Draper, UT

763. David A. Langrehr – Sparta, WI 764. Ronnie McKinney – Victoria, TX

Please call us at 406/542-1888 to speak with a Lifetime Associates Program specialist or visit our web site for more details: www.booneandcrockettclub.com

765. Jerry Y. Alvarez – Hondo, TX 766. Richard R. Nelson – Steilacoom, WA 767. George E. Tidwell – Houston, TX 768. William L. Topper – Pinehurst, TX 769. Dwight C. Jones – Macon, GA 770. Gerald K. Martin – South Australia

LIFETIME ASSOCIATES BENEFITS Subscription to Fair Chase n Lifetime shirt with B&C logo n Leather hat with B&C logo n Lifetime Associates plaque n 20% discount on select B&C books Significant tax deduction n Invitations to special events

771. Jose Marti – Spain 772. Deborah Donner – Denver, CO

n

773. Robert D. Saint-Louis – Genoa, IL n

777. Wheeler Price Pethtel – Sanger, TX As of September 9, 2011

New B&C Lifetime Associate David A. Langrehr New B&C Lifetime Associate Gerald K. Martin

New B&C Lifetime Associate William L. Topper

The Boone and Crockett Club would like to thank our Lifetime Associates for their loyalty and support of the Club’s commitment to science-based wildlife management and the user-pay North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 41

HUNTING, ETHICS, AND BIG GAME RECORDS

© Lon e. lauber photography

The Ageless Winchester Model 70 | Page 44 Then and Now – Alberta Mule Deer | Page 52 Generation Next | Page 58 Beyond the Score | Page 64 Trophy Talk | Page 66 Recently Accepted Trophies | Page 68 B&C Field Photos | Page 74

42 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

W

inchester’s flagship rose from the Great Depression as the gold standard of rifles. B&C Professional member Wayne van Zwoll presents a detailed look at the Model 70’s history and gives us some food for thought...

“When you’ve a chance to pick up a Model 70, do. If you’re thinking of selling one, don’t. And never limit yourself to one wheelbarrow. This is the Rifleman’s Rifle!” Glenn Brown of Blue Bronna Outfitting shares his thoughts from the trenches of Alberta hunting mule deer on the plains and the mountains. He recounts the days where mule deer tags went unfilled to the current situation with Alberta mule deer making regular appearances in the B&C records book. We also share our second installment of Generation Next, a special section highlighting youth hunters and youth programs from across the country such as the NRA Whittington Adventure Camp.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 43

No bolt-action rifle can match the Model 70’s long history with American deer hunters!

44 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

The Ageless

Winchester Model 70 In 1936, Winchester’s flagship rose from the Depression as the gold standard of rifles. Still is.

By Wayne van Zwoll B&C Professional Member

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 45

“The Rifleman’s Rifle.” It has the ring of

refinement, a crowning achievement. But Winchester’s Model 70 ascended a relatively short ramp. The company’s first successful bolt rifle, the Model 54, was but a decade old when the 70 was conceived.

The 54 followed the .45-70 Hotchkiss, abandoned soon after its introduction in the 1890s. In 1897 the Lee Straight Pull appeared, only to die six years later. During World War I, Winchester built Pattern 14 and Model 1917 Enfield rifles for British and American troops, a task that would catalyze efforts to develop a bolt-action hunting rifle. By 1922 Winchester designers had pruned the weaknesses of the Lee, Hotchkiss, and Enfield. The 54’s coned breech derived from the 1903 Springfield. Its receiver and bolt, its safety and extractor mirrored a Mauser 98’s. The ejector, after a Newton design, scotched the need for a slotted lug. The barrel, of nickel steel, lay in a slender walnut stock with schnabel forend, sharp comb, and “shotgun” (not crescent) buttplate. The 7 ¾-pound Model 54 cocked on opening and was strong enough for .30-06 pressures.

While the safety proved awkward under a scope, few shooters then owned scopes.

The new Winchester rifle sold well, thanks in part to a new cartridge announced for it. The .270 was essentially a .30-06 necked to launch 130grain bullets at 3,100 fps—lightning speed in 1925!

But celebration at the New Haven plant died in October 1929.

Winchester Repeating Arms was hard-hit by the market crash; in 1931 it faced receivership. On December 22nd of that year, it was bought by Western Cartridge Company. Chief executive John Olin considered the Model 54 a profitable venture, so T.C. Johnson and his staff refined the rifle they had engineered, equipped it with a beefier “NRA” stock and, in 1932, added the speed lock.

Initially offered only in .270 and .30-06, the 54 soon added eight top: An early bolt face other chamberings. These were, in order of increasing rarity, the .22 Hornet, shows Mauser-style .30-30, .250 Savage, 7mm Mauser, .257 Roberts, .220 Swift, 7.65mm Mauser and 9mm Mauser. Sporter versions of the 54 are most common; nine others extractor, ejector slot, and included Target and Sniper models with Marksman-style stocks, leather lug tapered for coned slings, and scope blocks. Prices in 1936 ranged from $59.75 (Sporter) to breech. BOTTOM: This $111 (Sniper’s Match). The Model 54’s single failing was its trigger, which 1970s era bolt face shows also served as a bolt stop and thus fared poorly in competition. While face-mounted extractor, hunters seemed to accept the mushy trigger, they balked at the top-swing plunger ejector, and split safety, which precluded low installation of Bill Weaver’s 330 scope. Also, lug for anti-bind rail. the 54’s speed lock didn’t work as predicted, and misfires ensued.

Winchester’s Model 54 was cataloged and available through 1941, albeit production slowed to a trickle during the last five years. Of 52,029 Model 54s shipped, 49,009 were boxed by the end of 1936.

A Glimmer in the Gloom

Work on a new bolt-action Winchester was authorized December 29, 1934, but it commenced slowly. In the mid-1930s men eating from soup kitchens had little money for rifles.

The Model 54 was still quite popular. And the Marksman stock designed for the Model 70 target rifle had yet to prove itself on 54s. As the economy got to its feet and the target 46 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

The O’Connor Connection It was time, he wrote, to burn powder. “I lay down in the muck, got into a nice tight sling with my left hand hard against the front swivel. I have great faith in that old .375 Magnum. It is a standard-grade Model 70 Winchester, remodeled by Griffin & Howe of New York, and it wears a Lyman 48 as well as a Kollmorgen 2 3/4x scope…. I fed a cartridge into the chamber … then held for a shoulder shot.”

O’Connor’s bullet, a “new, experimental Silvertip,” dropped the bear instantly. He noted that his rifle had “taken all three great predators—African lion, Indian tiger and Alaskan brown bear.”

As Outdoor Life’s shooting editor, Jack O’Connor carried many rifles and used many cartridges.

It’s no secret he favored Winchester’s Model 70 among bolt guns, and the .270 and .375 for much of his hunting. The .375 he reserved for heavy game. Jack made much editorial hay defending the likes of the .270 from attacks by what he called “the big-bore boys.” He allowed that when someone writes “the 7x57, the .270 and the .30-06 are not adequate for elk and are barely powerful enough for deer, I begin to snort and fume. My blood pressure rises, and before you know it, I am batting away at the typewriter.”

Like Old Betsy, his G&H .375, O’Connor’s signature .270 was a Model 70. Actually, he had two stocked and finished by Al Biesen, the Spokane, Washington, gunmaker who courted O’Connor early on with an offer to build him a rifle. “That was in 1937,” Al told me, “at the beginning of Jack’s career. He didn’t like the first rifle I sent him, a Titus-barreled Springfield. So I made him a .30-06 on Mauser metal. He bought it.” A contemporary of O’Connor’s, Biesen purchased his Spokane home “for $8,000 in 1948, soon after Jack wrote his first article about me.” That year, O’Connor moved with wife Eleanor from his native Tucson to Lewiston, Idaho.

O’Connor’s first .270 was not a Model 70, but a 54. He got it in 1925, birth year of the .270, and used it on hunts in the desert southwest for mule deer and black bears. He had it restocked by R.D. Tait of Dunsmuir, California. O’Connor bought his first Model 70 .270 in Tucson in 1943. Alvin Linden stocked it in time for Jack’s first Canadian pack trip that year. With a Weaver 330 scope, he used it to shoot his first bighorn, mountain goat, caribou, and moose.

In 1950, Pachmayr Gunworks of California built O’Connor a Model 70 in .257. He scoped it with a Weaver K4. That year he also bought a pre-war 70 magnum. Besides his first brown bear, tiger, and lion, that .375 accounted for “about 50 lions” after Jack gave it to Tanganyikan professional hunter John Kingsley-Heath after their 1959 safari.

Al Biesen turned down and shortened a standard barrel to supply O’Connor a lightweight .270 on Winchester’s 70 action in 1953. It wore a 4x Stith Kollmorgen scope in Tilden mounts. Next year, Jack got a big Wyoming elk with that rifle. It became a favorite, serving him on hunts to India, Iran, and central Africa—and to the Yukon, where it downed a 40-inch Dall’s ram. In 1957, as Jack was recovering from an automobile accident, Biesen brought to his hospital room a K4-scoped Model 70 in 7x57, reportedly on Winchester’s last barreled action in that chambering.

Two years later, Jack bought a Featherweight .270 M70. He turned it over to Biesen, who stocked it in French walnut and added refinements by then standard on rifles for O’Connor. Fitted with a Leupold 4x Mountaineer scope, it would become one of Jack’s go-to rifles, a fitting match to his first Biesen .270.

Other Model 70s graced the gun racks of Jack O’Connor, who died at sea in 1978. No one has a better grasp of their history than Buck Buckner, who knew O’Connor personally. Buckner contributed a great deal to the book “Jack O’Connor” by Robert Anderson. The chapter on rifles is Buckner’s and has a most complete and detailed list of the rifles carried by the dean of America’s gun writers.

LEFT background: O’Connor took this photo of his favorite Model 70 in 1971 during a Stone’s sheep hunt.

LEFT: Second only to the .30-06 in pre-64 M70s, the .270 (introduced in 1925) got kudos from O’Connor.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 47

ABOVE: Wayne killed this Rocky Mountain goat after an exhausting climb. The rifle... a Winchester M70 in .325 WSM. below: In the .300 H&H chambering, the Model 70 became our first successful .30 magnum rifle. BOTTOM: A fine M70 clone—the Model 1999 from Montana Rifle Company.

48 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

stock helped win matches, Winchester started building Model 70s. The first receivers got serial numbers January 20, 1936. On January 1, 1937, when the M70 was officially released, 2,238 rifles were boxed and ready to ship. List price: $61.25.

The new rifle resembled a 54, but its trigger had a separate sear permitting adjustment in take-up, weight, and over-travel. The bolt stop, pivoting on the trigger pin, was also separate, and worked through a slot in the lower rear section of the left lug race. For long-action rounds, the bolt stop arrested the left lug. One of three bolt stop extensions (to fit the .220 Swift, .250 Savage, and .22 Hornet) were mounted on the extractor collar to limit bolt throw for shorter cartridges.

Firing pin travel on the Model 70 was increased 1/16 inch to eliminate the misfires that had come on the heels of the 54’s speed lock. The change boosted lock time by 20 percent, to 3.5 milliseconds for most cartridges.

To augment the 54’s bolt-head gas ports, Winchester added a hole in the right side of the 70’s receiver ring. The first M70 safety was a tab atop the bolt shroud. It swung horizontally and cleared most scopes. Four years later it was moved to the side. The safety had a middle detent, which prevented firing but freed the bolt to cycle. The bolt handle, lowered to 45 degrees, swept rakishly to the rear. Its receiver notch acted as a safety abutment, should the lugs fail. The square bolt shoulder on the first 70s precluded low scope mounting and was later eliminated. Like the 54, the 70 had three guard screws, but a machined floorplate, hinged in front and latched by a spring-loaded plunger in the guard, supplanted the 54’s fixed magazine cover and guard.

Model 70 receivers were machined from solid bar stock, each beginning as a 7 ½ -pound, chrome-moly billet. After 75 machinings, a receiver weighed 19.3 ounces. It measured 8.77 inches long and 1.357 inches through the receiver ring. After hand-filing to finish, receivers were roll-marked with Winchester’s logo on the left wall, a wavy matte pattern impressed on the top of ring and bridge. Heat-treating followed spothardening of the extraction cam behind the bridge. Receivers were immersed in a 1,200degree salt bath for 24 hours, then Rockwell-tested to 47C. This test left a dimple in the cocking-piece groove in the tang.

Sandblasting, tumbling, polishing, and bluing readied the receivers for assembly.

Early Model 70 barrels had the same contours and threads as M54 barrels; they interchanged. But barrel materials had evolved. Stainless steel appeared in 1925. By 1932 chrome-molybdenum had become standard. M70 barrels were drop-forged, straightened by hand with a 15-pound hammer,

then turned true on a lathe. They were deephole-drilled and straightened again. Each bore was then reamed to the proper diameter and hook-rifled by a cutter slicing progressively deeper on several passes, one groove at a time.

Rifling took 11 minutes per barrel. After lapping with cadmium lead lubricated by carborundum oil, those first barrels were threaded (16 threads per inch on the 1-inch shank) and, depending on model, slotted for rear sights and front sight hoods. Ramps, forged with the barrels on early 70s, were handstippled. Later they were soldered on, machine-matted. Each barrel was stamped underneath with the caliber designation and the last two digits of the year, plus the inspector’s mark.

Parts, Stocks, and Cartridges

Chambering came next. The last of four reamers left the chamber undersized for headspacing. The barrel was roll-marked right and left on top, given a caliber stamp, then polished and blued. (During World War II, the right-side roll-mark was eliminated; a single left-side mark carried the chambering too.)

Most small parts for the first Model 70s were drop-forged, then machined. The floorplate hinge and bolt sleeve came from bar stock; the extractor was fashioned from 1095 spring steel. The bolt body, straightened after treating, got an inspector’s stamp at the base of the handle before bluing.

Model 70 stocks were roughed by band-saw from 2x36-inch blanks of black walnut (Marksman and Super-Grade and special-order stocks were 3.8 inches wide before contouring). Standard stocks went to an eight-spindle duplicator for shaping. Drumsanding followed. Inletting was finished by hand; so too final sanding (with 240-grit paper). Minor flaws were repaired with stick shellac, glue or wood welding. The first M70 stocks got clear nitrocellulose lacquer finish over an alcohol-based stain and filler. These lacquers contained carnauba wax, which produced an oil-like sheen. The war made carnauba wax scarce; harder lacquers then appeared. Hand checkering with carbide cutters readied stocks for assembly.

Headspacing followed final chamber polish, trigger adjustment, and a function check. Barrels and receivers got the Winchester Proof (WP) stamp after digesting one “blue pill” cartridge, which generated 70,000 psi. After each bolt body was etched with the serial number, the rifle was fired for a 50-yard zero. Next it was cleaned, inspected, disassembled, reassembled, inspected again. Finally, it was tagged, oiled, greased, wrapped in brown waxed paper and nested in a corrugated cardboard box.

The Model 70 had much to offer

hunters: a comfortable stock and an accurate barrel, a bull-dog Mauser extractor that controlled feeding, plus an adjustable trigger and a low-slung bolt handle that swept by scope bells. The receiver swallowed long belted magnums like the potent .300 and .375 H&H. Besides these heavies, early M70s chambered the .22 Hornet, .220 Swift, .250-3000 Savage, .257 Roberts, .270 WCF, 7mm Mauser, and .30-06. Between 1941 and 1963 nine more cartridges were added; however, only eight appeared in catalogs. (Winchester “Gun Salesman Handbooks” distributed in 1947 included the .300 Savage, chambered until 1954.) More M70 chamberings arrived in the 1950s and early 1960s, all Winchester cartridges: the .243, .264 Magnum, .308, .300 Magnum, .338 Magnum, .358 and .458 Magnum. Most have enjoyed great success, though their introduction came shortly before the Model 70 suffered what has become the most infamous re-design in all rifledom. Of the 581,471 M70s built before its 1963 overhaul, 208,218 were .30-06s; 122,323 were .270s.

Rifles in .35 Remington and .300 Savage totaled 404 and 362, respectively.

By the early 1960s, Model 70s had come in 29 styles and 48 sub-configurations.

Featherweights with 22-inch barrels appeared after the War to replace the heavier M70 carbines with 20-inch barrels. The .308 and

.358 chamberings were listed only for Featherweight rifles. Super Grade 70s had special stocks and a floorplate stamp but no distinctive metalwork. The 70’s tang changed during the 1940s, following the move to a side-swing safety. The safety tab shape changed too. The bridge, initially matted, was later left smooth and drilled for scope bases. Bolt knobs, solid at first, were hollowed in the 1950s. Changes in bolt sleeve, bolt stop, striker spring retainer, and other components were largely phased in unannounced.

Late Model 70 stocks had higher combs for easy aim with scopes. Checkering patterns remained the same, but checkering quality deteriorated as 1963 approached.

A Chill Wind

Winchester’s Model 70 proved less appealing to company accountants than to hunters. In 1960 number-crunchers in New Haven decided to arrest plummeting profits by trimming production costs. Two years later engineers had agreed upon 50 changes. These were implemented in 1963. On October 1st of that year, number 700,000 appeared on the first “new” 70. Winchester could not have anticipated its reception.

Riflemen howled with rage. Vicious denunciations targeted the stock’s pressed checkering and a barrel channel with gaps

wide enough to swallow car keys. The recessed bolt face had a tiny hook, not a Mauser claw.

The early 70’s machined steel guard was supplanted by aluminum, solid action pins by roll-pins, the bolt stop’s coil spring by musicwire. A painted red cocking indicator under the bolt shroud had as much appeal as the white stock spacers that followed.

In the early 1970s, I asked Winchester’s management if the early M70 might return.

“Never,” was the reply. “It’d cost too much.”

But engineers did refine the new rifle. In 1966 an anti-bind rail smoothed bolt travel. Six years later an XTR version wore a more attractive stock. Featherweight rifles got a truly handsome stock in 1980. A short-action 70 arrived in 1984. A short run of low-priced, push-feed Model 70 Rangers vanished too soon. They had plain but well-finished hardwood stocks on the same metal used for ordinary 70s. Mine have shot well. The 70’s first synthetic stock appeared around 1985. In 1987 the Mauser claw returned on some models. Stainless steel rifles debuted four years later.

Olin divested itself of Winchester Repeating Arms in 1981, licensing the name to investors who formed the U.S. Repeating Arms Company (USRAC). But profits stayed out of reach. Beset by rising labor costs in a slow market, USRAC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1984. Five investors purchased Trade your old binoculars by 10/31 for up to $200 off the price of selected Ultravid HD models. Visit http://bit.ly/Ultravid

Glassing in its purest Form.

Leica Ultravid HD binoculars.

Leica Ultravid HD binoculars represent the perfect blend of technical performance and optical purity. Fluoride lens glass ensures brilliant color fidelity and perfect contrast, delivering incomparable image brightness and clarity – even in poor light conditions. Pure glassing performance, every time. ___ maximum performance, minimum weight ___ superior ergonomic features ___ legendary ruggedness and durability

Find out more at leica-sportoptics.com

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 49

the company in 1987. One was the Belgian firm of Fabrique Nationale (FN), which came away with a 44-percent share. In 1991 the French conglomerate Giat bought FN. When Giat’s Jack Mattan arrived from Belgium to take the reins at USRAC, he told me that “Winchester is the greatest name in the gun world. But it has focused too long on production. Shooters don’t need a new rifle every year. We must recruit new customers.”

But though Winchester’s flagship bolt rifle had grown more fetching since the dark days of 1963, sales couldn’t cover production costs. The factory in which 20,000 workers had toiled during the second world war was doomed. Even on my first visit, when it struggled on under Olin’s umbrella, the great New Haven plant harbored mostly ghosts.

Oil-soaked hardwood creaked hollowly in rooms with neither people nor machinery.

Lonely cells still functioned, workers in soiled aprons feeding an aged lathe or inspecting, with sepulchral stares, modest stacks of completed rifles. The factory that had undergirded the Allied war machine and served generations of sportsmen now gasped with the echoes of solitary footfalls. In March 2006, the New Haven plant closed. Union contracts had driven annual losses “into seven figures.”

Alas, Winchester’s Model 70 died 70 years after its debut, behind bricks stained by decades of industrial soot, under skylights still blackened to foil the Luftwaffe.

Postscript

No rifleman expected the Model 70 to be left for dead. It had, in fact, already been Model 70 Featherweights: circa 1960 with Redfield scope (top) and circa 2000.

Notice stock shapes.

50 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

cloned. The Dakota 76 was a refined M70.

The Kimber 84 carried its primary features.

The Montana Rifleman had replicated it with investment castings. In 2000, FNH USA, the U.S. subsidiary of FN Herstal, had taken the last of New Haven’s production for its Special Police Rifle, built in FN’s modern Columbia, South Carolina plant.

Winchester manufactures the Model 70 there now. In many respects, it’s a better rifle than ever.

CNC machines hold tolerances tighter.

All eight versions (in two action lengths) wear Mauser-style claws and blade ejectors. Onepiece bottom metal trumps the separate guard and magazine tab of early M70s. Stainless and chrome-moly barrels are hammer-forged, in 16 chamberings. Wood-stocked rifles feature nicely checkered walnut. Synthetic stocks by Bell & Carlson are the best of their kind, with alloy bedding blocks for enhanced strength and accuracy. Pachmayr Decelerator pads make shooting more comfortable.

The M.O.A. three-lever trigger is not as simple as the original, nor to some aficionados as good. It works.

With list prices starting a penny below $800, the Rifleman’s Rifle is less affordable now—though when it came to market at $61, you could buy a house for less than $10,000.

In 1963, when $154 bought you any M70 hunting rifle save the .458 African, gasoline sold for 28 cents a gallon, and Ford’s Mustang was about to debut at $2,700.

I’ve owned enough Model 70s to fill a wheelbarrow; too few, given my enduring affinity for the rifle. I’ve sold many I’d beg to have back, have passed up others I felt were indulgences unfitting the head of a young household. Still, those I’ve carried have forged many fine memories afield.

High atop an Oregon ridge, over frosted rock on the cusp of dawn, I peered through a 3x Lyman and triggered a 1948 M70 to send a hand-loaded .270 bullet toward a mule deer buck 300 yards off. The 130-grain softpoint flew true. So did a .30-06 bullet years later, on a spine a few air miles away, when a very fine buck almost out-foxed me by hiding in a dry, steep place no deer would choose.

Model 70s have toppled several elk for me, including a bull galloping across a slope at 180 steps. He somersaulted to the bite of the .300 Winchester. That rifle should still be with me. Its bolt ran silkily, and it delivered 1-minute accuracy. It went the way of a lovely .338 that tagged a moving elk just before the bull made Montana timber, the 200-grain Power Point cleaving its heart.

A Model 70 killed my first caribou, on a hunt that stranded us behind beached canoes fronting a wall of sea ice north of Hudson’s Bay. Another Model 70 in .300 Holland downed my first eland, a monstrous bull that broke cover a garage-length away and tumbled to my 180-grain Core-Lokt on the sprint. I clutched that rifle some days later when, at night, I encountered a herd of elephants in a remote vlei. The cows scented me, came for me. I scurried cross-wind through tall grass and lay pressed to the earth as they ghosted up, trunks raised, poised to kill.

The breeze held.

I’m indebted to the Winchester Model 70. Not so much for game it has taken for me, but for the journeys we’ve taken—to far-off places, times now past. The 1948 rifle is still with me, as is a .375 that killed my first buffalo. A handful of others. When you’ve a chance to pick up a Model 70, do.

If you’re thinking of selling one, don’t. And never limit yourself to one wheelbarrow. This is the Rifleman’s Rifle! n

Get The Free Tag Reader At

http://gettag.mobi elk

Power To The Max. Power Max BondedÂŽ is designed specifically to deliver maximum performance at an affordable price.

The proprietary bonding process welds the lead core to a contoured copper alloy jacket.

The aerodynamic profile of the protected hollow point (PHP) bullet design promotes long range accuracy and initiates maximum expansion to provide dramatic knock down power.

New offerings for 2011: 223 Rem, 325 WSM and 338 Win Mag.

www.winchester.com Made in USA

Š2010 Winchester Ammunition.

Documenting Wildlife Success Stories from the Past to the Present

ALBERTA > MULE deer

By Glenn Brown Blue Bronna Outfitting

First let me give you a little background on myself as this is the first article I have written on one of my favorite sub-

jects—finding big mule deer. I was born and raised in a little farming community in Saskatchewan. We had lots of whitetails around, especially on my Grandpa’s farm. In those days (I was born in 1960) there were no mule deer in that country, and I grew up TEN OLDEST hunting whitetails while only hearing about the MULE DEER ENTRIES FROM ALBERTA mule deer on draw system in the very southwestern Entered in B&C’s Records Program part of the province.

SCORE

LOCATION

HUNTER

OWNER(S)

DATE

230 NT

Buck Lake, AB

William Meyer

Bill Landals

Prior to 1910

355 2/8 NT

Chip Lake, AB

Ed Broder

Don Schaufler

1926

243 6/8 NT

Slave Lake, AB

RWH Eben-Ebeneau

RWH Eben-Ebeneau

1930

254 4/8 NT

Maloy, AB

Otto Schmalzbauer

Otto Schmalzbauer

1930

195 1/8 TP

Red Deer River, AB

Frank G. Foland

Jon K. Taylor

1931

227 7/8 NT

Waterton Park, AB

Walter Foster

D.J. Hollinger & B. Howard

Prior to 1934

235 NT

Garnier Lakes, AB

Arthur Gallagher

Richard C. Nelson

1936

252 NT

Grease Creek, AB

Jack McCallum

J.H. Fry

Prior to 1940

247 5/8 NT

Waterton Park, AB

Eric Westergreen

Eric Westergreen

1941

245 2/8 NT

Lac La Biche, AB

Julius Hagen

Olaf Hagen

1945

© donald m. jones

Ed Broder harvested this non-typical mule deer on November 26, 1926. This buck has survived as a World’s Record for over 80 years.

52 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Big Mule Deer Where, Why, When, and How Do I Find Them?

a ss bu ck , 2010 A lbe r t a – 20 0 -cl

i nt , 2010 0 -c la ss 3 po A lb er t a – 19

A lb er t a – 19 0 -c la ss bu ck , 2010

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 53

MULE DEER ENTRIES Throughout the Years TYPICAL

NONTYPICAL

TOTAL

1910 to 2010

57

30

87

2000 to 2010

33

11

44

DATES

After college I moved to Alberta where I started hunting the southern mountains in 1981. It was here that I first started to hunt mule deer. After several years of taking buddies into the mountains hunting elk and mule deer, I started Blue Bronna Outfitting. For 25 years now I have taken hundreds of hunters into northern Alberta for bear and moose, to central Alberta for whitetails and big prairie mule deer, and into the southwestern mountains for elk, moose, black bears, and mountain mule deer.

As I write this, I am sitting beside a fire with an awesome view of the Great Divide, within a couple miles of where I took my first elk and mule deer. The key to those first animals was perseverance, a lot of hard hiking, good luck, and much leg work. Over the years, those qualities have served me well to discover tough country; yet, without diminishing the necessity of perseverance and luck, I now know it takes more than that to be continually successful in finding big mule deer.

WHERE & WHY?

The first step in finding quality mule deer is to hunt where they are. That’s obvious.

But how does one know where they can be found? Why are there big muleys in southern Saskatchewan, British Columbia, parts of Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, Kansas, Montana, Arizona, Mexico, and in a lot of places in Alberta (eastern, central, western, mountains, prairies, and boreal Peace River country)? What makes these places exceptional?

Consistently, I believe big muleys are found where they have good genetics, great food, and time to grow up. The first two can be just about anywhere but the last—time to grow—is only found where predators are not able to consistently keep the numbers down. When I say predators, I am referring to both the two-footed and four-footed 54 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

A lb er t a – 20 0 -c la ss bu ck , 2010

varieties. Thus, big mule deer are found where either the country makes hunting so tough that predators don’t get to them, or where they are valued by the biologists of the area enough so that they are put on a limited harvest regimen in a situation where fourfooted predators are limited.

In Alberta I need to thank our biologists for the management of our mule deer.

If it was not for their efforts in creating limited hunting opportunities for mule deer, we would still have very limited numbers of big bucks in Alberta. In one of the wildlife management units (WMUs) where I now consistently find great mule deer, I have talked to longtime residents who remember when only whitetails were found there. This is consistent with where I grew up in Saskatchewan; now there are very good mule deer where, as a boy, I only saw whitetails.

What has changed? Why are we now finding big muleys where only whitetails were 30 years ago? What about the old wives’ tale, the belief that whitetails chase out the mule deer? Dr. Valerius Geist, a B&C Professional member and renowned biologist as well as a mule deer expert also believes that whitetails will eventually “breed out” the mule deer (another subject altogether). However, in Geist’s book Mule Deer Country, he gives some great information as to why mule deer, are moving into previous whitetail areas.

Geist states that “mule deer normally dominate white-tailed deer” (p. 165). He also states, “There is no convincing evidence or observations that white-tailed deer displace mule deer from their ranges through overt aggression” (p. 165).

I believe that mule deer will abound if they are managed in a manner that keeps the age ratio in a balanced proportion. If there are large male mule deer bucks, they will keep whitetail bucks from breeding out the mule deer. Geist also states, “Hunting, which removes large mule deer bucks more

efficiently than it does the secretive, often nocturnal white-tailed bucks…in turn, leads to large white-tailed bucks displacing minor mule deer bucks.”

The areas producing big mule deer either have limited predator and hunting pressure due to tough terrain or the biologists have put the area under restrictions so that there are limited numbers of bucks harvested. I have spent many years guiding and looking at mule deer, and my personal observations tend to mirror Geist’s observations. Mule deer will flourish, but only if managed in a fashion that keeps a supply of big, older bucks available.

In southwestern Alberta’s Porcupine Hills, biologists had documented a sufficient supply of mule deer about 10 years ago, although not big bucks. Another outfitter believed there would never be large bucks in the Porcupine Hills. I disagreed. I had witnessed the explosion of large mule deer buck populations in the central and eastern parts of the province when those WMUs were put on draw several years earlier. There was political will to put the mule deer on draw in the southwest; however, wildlife managers did not have a scientific reason to implement a limited draw because the mule deer were plentiful. I showed Geist’s research to my local game biologist who took it to a meeting where the matter was discussed among several of the province’s biologists. Brent Markham (head biologist of Alberta at that time) decided to put the area on draw. In four years, that area went from a place where outfitters did not use all their allocations to a very high demand for mule deer hunts.

Four-footed predators are the other predators that can deplete larger bucks. I believe that wolves, cougars, and even coyotes are very hard on older bucks. Another outfitter friend of mine, who hunts cougars, spent a day back-tracking a cougar and found four mature bucks killed by the cougar in that one day of tracking. Older bucks tend to stay back from the open country which muley does frequent, and thus, are in the prime area where a cougar would likely be stalking.

I personally watched a large panicked buck come flying by me and two bowhunters around 10:30 a.m. when we were going after elk. Although we did not see a wolf on his heels in the morning, that evening as we were coming back from an unsuccessful elk stalk, we had wolves howling around us.

Best of 2011

Sponsored by

The hunting experience is remembered and reflected back upon in many ways. In the old days, just the meat, head skins, hides, horns, antlers, or tusks were salvaged as mementoes of successful hunts. With the advent of the camera, photographs were added to what we could carry with us across time to remember the hunt and honor the animals taken.

The Boone and Crockett Club has a tradition of honoring trophies and the fair chase hunts that produce them, including photographs from the field. In keeping with this tradition, the Club, and our friends at Swarovski, thought it would be a good idea to take this one step further and celebrate some of the best examples of field photography, and share them with you in each issue of Fair Chase.

For the third year, our editors will be sifting through hundreds of field photos looking for exemplary trophy field photography. The most

outstanding examples will be featured in the Spring 2012 issue with the top three being awarded prizes provided by Swarovski Optik.

NOTE: All field photographs from accepted trophies in 2011 are eligible.

Eric Moore black bear – 20-13/16 Wallaston Lake, Saskatchewan September 2010

Rene R. Barrientos typical whitetail deer – 172-2/8 La Salle Co., Texas October 2010

Jack D. Manning Rocky Mountain goat 51-6/8 Weber Co., Utah September 2007

Winners Receive

Second Prize - EL 10x42 WB

The EL 42 which has won multiple awards as the world’s best binocular particularly because of its outstanding, diamond-bright optic which is perfectly suited for all kinds of viewing. Its legendary wrap-around grip, the large focusing wheel and its thumb rests, ensures the EL 42 offers the most perfect ergonomics of its class.

First Prize - STM 65 HD

Third Prize - Z3 3-9x36 Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 55

a ss bu ck , 2010 A lbe r t a – 19 0 -cl

When we got to the spot the buck had torn through, a wolf came out in front of us and loped off down the exact path the buck had taken. I believe the wolves got sidetracked with our bugling, and when they figured out we were human, they went right back to the chase they had originally been on 10 hours prior.

The other quality I would like to touch on is the issue of high quality feed.

Geist states on page 73 of Mule Deer Country that “antlers are universally highly sensitive to forage surpluses.” Obviously in good agricultural areas there is an abundance of good feed. But what about the big bucks coming out of the desert areas? A couple hunters who regularly hunt for mule deer with me in Alberta also hunt Old Mexico. What they have observed is that when Old Mexico has an abundant amount of moisture, out pop the big bucks. In Alberta, we observed the same thing in 2010 when we had a very wet summer. The top six bucks taken by 16 mule deer hunters (including a three-point which went 190-plus) averaged a gross green score of 200 inches. That is a better season than I have had in a long time and the summer was a very wet one. Why does moisture produce better bucks—or does it?

The head biologist for fish and wildlife in Alberta asked me why I thought 2010 was such a good year for antler growth. My hypothesis? From my observations, older bucks do not want to move a whole lot during the summer. They like to find a spot that has everything they need and stay there until they, seemingly randomly, move to their next position. The next spot may have a different type of feed but won’t be far away, and still near water and shelter. Year after year, older bucks tend to be found in the same protected spots. I believe the quality of browse diminishes when it is dry because deer are hard on the plants which they—and other animals— need. When a wet year comes along, these 56 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

plants produce more browse than normal, and the bucks produce better antlers.

Biologists also tell us that the main item which correlates with big antlers, whether mule deer or other antlered deer, is the type of winter weather during the buck’s mother’s pregnancy. If the doe has an easy winter and comes into the spring in good shape, the buck she gives birth to has a very high chance of producing a superior set of antlers. There are many other factors that influence the type of antlers a buck will grow, but this one is most consistent.

When trying to determine an area with big bucks, check out the winter from four to six years prior, and see if it was abnormally tough or easy. This may give you a clue as to what the older bucks have to back up their racks.

WHEN & HOW DO I FIND THEM?

I am constantly asked, “What is the best week to come?” from hunters wanting to find a big mule deer in Alberta. I generally answer with “the week your guide is the luckiest” or “the week we find the big deer,” etc. I am not particularly stuck on any one week, especially as I look back over our history and find that we have taken big deer in the mountains from September 24th through the first week of November (we generally only hunt the mountains for mule deer until the end of October).

In November we get busy with our prairie hunts, which are only open for rifle during the month of November.

Our biggest deer generally come when we least expect it. The reason is in the “how” to find them. The key to getting a chance at a mature mule deer is by knowing the country and where you can see them. Mule deer bucks tend to move from doe location to doe location and can show up at any time of the day.

Therefore, one finds them by spending time watching spots where they will show up.

In October 2010, we had a hunter who wanted to get a big deer in the worst way. He wanted to get out and hike the ridges till he found that deer. His guide was trying to get him to stay put and glass, but it was really frustrating for the hunter. I told his guide to get him on a ridge and spend a couple days walking. They saw a good number of deer but no shooters. After several days, I took him out and persuaded him to watch one part of a mountain while I watched another.

I found an awesome buck we went after, but it was too late and we lost him. The next morning, I went back up on the mountain and tried to find the buck but found another

two instead. He eventually got a gross 197inch deer that day. Glassing areas where you can see is highly superior to walking.

We find the big deer by constantly using good glass and spending a lot of time looking into areas where we know there are deer. This glassing is mainly done from a distance of a half mile or more. This is crucial.

Most people have no idea as to the alert hearing ability of a mature mule deer. A few years ago I had a hunter set up in a great location at 425 yards from a big buck checking does. He did not feel confident to make the shot at that distance, so we decided to try and get closer as we had a good line of cover.

We were as quiet as I believe we could have been, but when we were still over 300 yards away behind a line of trees, I saw the buck peeking around some trees at us. He disappeared, and we never saw him again. When we last saw him prior to him looking at us he was totally distracted with does.

Another time I was bow hunting and had a 195-inch buck at 100 yards and could not get closer. I decided to see what he could hear. I scratched the leg of my pants and instantly his head came up and he glued right to where I was hidden. In another instance, a hunter was wearing a stiff denim material and his guide told him it was too loud. They spotted a huge muley and blew the stalk at 500 yards because of the swish of his jeans.

This same hunter turned down a 204-inch muley the next year as he did not believe it was near as big as the one he had blown the year prior.

The last hunter I had in 2010 wanted a 200-inch muley. We turned down over 70 bucks in the first five days of his hunt. We saw several in the 190s and a dozen over 180; however, I could not say any were 200-plus.

Finally we found one which I thought was a shooter and while discussing it, the buck, which was chasing a doe amongst five or six others, heard the movement the hunter made as he brushed a twig to get his shot. That buck instantly went into motion pushing his doe and evading us at the same time. The does never had a clue we were there and we never did get that buck.

What I am saying is mule deer have not just good—but great—hearing and it will beat you many more times than you will ever know. If you know where they are from your glassing, you have a much better chance of getting the drop on them, and even then it is tough to get a great chance at a big deer.

Secondly, try not to get wrapped up in numbers and measurements but enjoy the whole experience while in mule deer country. Good Luck hunting, great luck spotting and in spite of it all, learn and enjoy your time in the outdoors. n

A Available in Superformance® Varmint™ Superformance® Match™ Superformance® ammunition from 222 Rem to 458 Win

M

M

U

N

I

T

I

O

N

Supercharge your rifle’s performance by up to 200 feet per second! Superformance ® ammunition is faster than ANY conventional ammunition without increases in chamber pressure, felt recoil, muzzle blast, temperature sensitivity, fouling or loss of accuracy.

• IT IS FAST: 100 to 200 fps FASTER than any conventional ammunition • IT IS ACCURATE: Uncompromising accuracy without increased felt recoil • IT IS CONSISTENT: Unfailing performance in any temperature • IT IS VERSATILE: Safe to use in ALL fi rearms, including semi-autos, lever guns and pump actions

It

.....rocket science!® IS.....

To see how Superformance® delivers faster speeds, go to hornady.com or scan the QR code.

Search your phone’s app store for a QR reader.

800.338.3220 | HORNADY.COM Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 57

Generation Next: Eternal Fire of Youth

By Ted Nugent

At the tender age of 63, God has blessed me with an incredible gravity-defying connection with the youth of America. It just might be all that outrageous, defiant, high-energy rhythm and blues and rock ‘n’ roll I’ve unleashed on the unsuspecting masses each year for more than 50 years as I’ve toured the hinterland. But based on the daily communication I have had with families across America, more than the flame-throwing music, it is my beloved Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild TV show on Outdoor Channel that galvanizes the youth of America with the old Nuge. How cool is that?

I constantly hear the terms “outrageous,” “passion,” “energy,” “spirit,” “attitude,” and other descriptions characterizing how these young viewers celebrate our show. But the most repeated word of all is “fun.” And that would be “FUN!” in all caps with a bold exclamation point! Well hallelujah!

On our last hunt together just before he died, the late, great Fred Bear told me to never lose that exuberance about my hunting life, and to keep promoting our cherished hunting lifestyle to the youth of the world just the way I was.

With that instruction from my hero, I created the Ted Nugent Kamp for Kids charity in 1989, and we have graduated nearly 20,000 youngsters into the joyous world of hunting, fishing, trapping, archery, and the shooting sports. And like Fred said, it has cleansed their souls.

We salute all the sporters who reach out to the young folk out there, for surely every hunter knows that the future of conservation and our hunting rights pivot on how effectively we promote the outdoor lifestyle in order to recruit the next generation of real environmentalists. More and more groups, organizations, and individuals are teaching, mentoring, and thereby recruiting kids into what is, without a doubt, the most exciting, adventurous, stimulating, and rewarding activity known to man.

The disciplines of “aim small, miss small” and that higher level of predator awareness are exactly what young people crave, and given a conscientious, fun-filled introduction, most of them will become dedicated, passionate hunters overnight.

And don’t just settle for taking our own kids out there. Aggressively pursue those non-hunting families to invite their kids along on the next shooting session at the range. Be sure to have a light draw-weight bow and arrows handy to baptize a new kid into the moving world of the mystical flight of the arrow. A simple non-pressured fishing excursion will light a fire too.

So here’s to the mentors and more so to the young hunters out there; turn up the heat, be bolder and more aggressive, and remember that it is the fun factor that will draw them in. Sportsmanship will come with the proper guidance, but it is the sheer joy and challenge of our outdoor lifestyle that is the ultimate carrot. Go get ‘em. Let the games begin!

58 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

28th Awards Program Youth Hunters Accepted trophies from May 20, 2011 through August 31, 2011 Hunter Jacob L. Boeschling Ashley L. Doss Nicholas B. Elston Andrea M. Fencl Sally M. Kasten Robert K. MacMillan William A. Mordell Melissa Noel Corey J. Ruoff Logan J. Tracy

Category non-typical whitetail deer cougar typical whitetail deer black bear typical whitetail deer pronghorn pronghorn typical whitetail deer non-typical whitetail deer non-typical whitetail deer

Location of Kill Pottawatomie Co., KS Stevens Co., WA Pulaski Co., IN Forest Co., WI Marquette Co., WI Coconino Co., AZ Carbon Co., WY Pike Co., OH Pickaway Co., OH Seneca Co., OH

Date 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Final Score 195 6/8 14 14/16 164 7/8 20 3/16 160 83 6/8 80 168 2/8 198 4/8 211 2/8

NOTE: Trophies listed in orange include field photos.

Melissa Noel

William A. Mordell

Robert K. MacMillan

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 59

Generation Next: Essay Submitted by: Rylan Rudebusch Age: 14 Trophy Type: Shiras’ moose Location: Larimer County, CO I knew we were close, but where was he? The willows were so dense that making out anything more than a few feet away was nearly impossible. Then, in a blink of the eye, he appeared. The first features that came into view were the incredibly long palms.

They were a magnificent sight, reflecting the sun well above the willows. Next, the massive, dark body came into view at less than 50 yards. He was on a mission, making tracks for the other side of the drainage. I couldn’t figure out why he was running.

This was the only bull that Rylan had shown any interest in during our entire summer of scouting. There was no way he could have seen or smelled us, so what was it?

“What happened? You didn’t shoot,” I said, half asking and half stating. Sometimes things happen pretty fast in the field, especially to a 14-year-old. My youngest son, Rylan, had drawn a coveted Colorado bull moose tag in 2007 at the age of 14—the first year he was eligible. I started putting him in for points when he was 11 and boy did it pay off! Here’s Rylan’s account of his hunt.

My dad is really into hunting, and he got me into it too. One day I came home from school and Dad told me that I had drawn a moose license. It was only my third year hunting, but I knew that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, literally. I was nervous. In the past, Dad had told me stories about people getting hard-to-get licenses but not getting anything or shooting something just to put a tag on it. If these experienced hunters couldn’t find the animals they were looking for, then how was I supposed to? Luckily I had Dad to help.

One of the first people Dad called was a good friend, Scott Limmer, owner of Comanche Wilderness Outfitters, (my dad guides for Scott). Scott and his crew have guided numerous moose hunters to their trophies in Colorado, and he was pretty excited to hear of my good fortune. He knew the potential of this unit in Larimer County and told us of a big bull that had been eluding his hunters over the past two seasons. Scott also said he would loan us two of his guides, Mike Williams and Fred Sell, to help out.

Late that summer, Dad and I helped Scott pack in and set up high-country elk camps for the fall hunting season. While en route to designated campsites, we would get the lay of the land and Scott would show us where he and his guides had seen some pretty nice bulls in the past. I’m not much into riding horses, so instead of riding, Dad and I hiked.

This made for some pretty long, tiring days, but it was worth it.

We made several scouting trips into my unit. On one trip we hiked high up on a mountain together, and it wasn’t long before I spotted a bull across a basin. Dad said, “That looks like one! What do you say we run over there to get a better look and some film of him?”

I thought for a second and said, “How about you run over there, and I’ll stay here and keep an eye on him in case he moves?” So off Dad went.

I kept an eye on Dad until he was out of sight. I then took in the scenery and glassed until I finally saw Dad making his way back. When he got back, he was excited, telling me how close he got and the film he took of the “good” bull. It always seemed like every bull Dad saw was a “good” bull—still is, for that matter.

The next morning, I slept in while Dad went out to check a new drainage. A few hours later he returned and was again pumped about what he saw. He showed me some film he took of a couple bulls and pointed out a “good” one! For the first time, I agreed with him.

It really was a good bull, and I made this my number one choice. We later found out this was the bull that had eluded Scott and crew. They had named him “High & Tight.” As his name suggested he wasn’t the widest bull, but he had super long and wide paddles, a lot of points and huge brows.

60 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

When hunting season finally arrived, the plan was for me to hunt for three days, then go back to school for two. Mom agreed to this part of the plan, but I didn’t tell Mom the part about hunting the rest of the season if unsuccessful, and Dad wasn’t about to say anything.

We headed out early, two days before the season. It seems like every time we do anything outdoors like camping, fishing, scouting, hunting, or anything else, Dad seems to think we need to get there before daylight. This time, we arrived where we wanted to be right at daylight, but it was raining, so we drove around scouting until it stopped. Mike Williams went up a couple days earlier to secure our camping spot at the edge of a big park. This enabled us the opportunity to hunt right outside of camp.

Not much later, my Uncle Marlyn showed up to tag along for the hunt. He had never seen a moose, but Dad said his strong back would be needed later. Marlyn’s day job is construction, but he was going to be my cameraman. I later found out that he swings a hammer better than he runs a camera.

On Sunday morning, we still had one day of scouting left. Fred Sell rolled into camp, ready to do some scouting. Marlyn went with Fred to check out some of the areas with less hiking so he could get used to the altitude. It had snowed a few inches and it was still moving and blowing around the landscape.

We headed up the drainage into the hidden basin we had scouted in August. Once we were close to the head of the drainage, we started seeing moose. We glassed a bull until he went into the timber and Dad said (you guessed it), “That’s a good bull. That could be your No. 1 bull.”

After lunch, we brought Marlyn with us so he could see the bull. Out of nowhere, we came face-to-face with a bull. He dropped his head and gave it a shake at 30 yards. Dad stepped back and told us to get some pictures.

I fumbled for the camera and Marlyn snapped a few with his while the bull came forward.

Again, my dad instructed us to “Get some more pictures.” I finally got my camera going and the bull took a couple more steps forward, cutting our distance to him in half. I turned around and saw Dad running for cover, so Marlyn and I decided that it was a good idea to follow. The bull proceeded to move past us at 15 steps. You guessed it; Dad said, “Hey that was a pretty good bull!”

Dad wanted to see the pictures so Marlyn set his camera up but found out his card was full and hadn’t recorded one picture.

He told us that he borrowed the camera from my other uncle, Larry. The thought of him being my cameraman didn’t seem that great.

Whose idea was this—Dad?

Opening day finally arrived. Mike and Fred headed to check a drainage not far from where Dad, Marlyn, and I were headed. The morning was cold, really cold.

The vegetation was very tall and made a lot of noise as we walked through it. Finally, we cut through a little section of timber and emerged into an open park. From there we moved up the drainage to where it narrowed, staying just inside the timber, popping out now and then to glass.

The sun was just beginning to rise above the mountaintops. After a few hundred

The bull stopped, turned, and looked right at us, his head held high and proud like he was king of the valley. Despite how cold I was, I was sweating. I put the crosshairs on target but I was shaking, so I took a breath and let it out easy. The sun was in my eyes, so dad took a step forward and blocked the sun. Now I could see him clearly. I took another breath, let it out, and fired.

At the sound of the shot the bull was off and running. He only went 10 yards and stopped, so I shot again. This time the bull only took a step and lifted his front leg. I fired

yards of hiking the drainage, we stopped to glass. Immediately we saw the sun illuminating two huge palms just above the willow tops.

We ducked into the timber, moved up another 100 yards, and the next thing I saw was a bull running across the drainage at close range.

Dad set up the shooting sticks and said, “There you go! That’s your bull!” I was caught off-guard.

Later, Dad said he knew the first time we glassed him that this was my bull, but he didn’t want to tell me because he didn’t want to get me all worked up. I quickly got the gun on the sticks and got him in the scope but the shot just didn’t present itself. I didn’t want to take a shot just to shoot, no matter how much I wanted him. I also had the sun in my shooting eye.

The bull made it across and into the timber. “What happened? You didn’t shoot,” Dad asked.

I told him and he said, “You did the right thing. Good job; it’s okay. We’ll move up a little and set up again.”

A little further up the drainage, Dad said, “There’s a cow and a calf. That’s why the bull went running across, to check out that cow!” Within a few seconds I heard Dad say “Here he comes, there’s your bull Rylan.”

Dad ranged him at 167 yards. “Let him come.

Get on him, 142 yards.”

Rylan Rudebusch with the Shiras’ moose he harvested in Larimer County, Colorado.

The bull’s final score is 180-2/8 points.

Rudebusch’s moose was recognized with a Second Award at the 27th Big Game Awards Banquet held in 2010. again and the bull did a 360 and down he went. I put another round in the chamber, ready to fire again, but he couldn’t make it to his feet. All three of us watched intently to make sure he was done, but no one said a word. We just looked at each other in disbelief. Finally, Dad said, “You did it! That’s your bull. That’s the big bull. Great job!”

In no time Mike and Fred joined us, and Fred’s first response was “Awesome!

That’s him, High and Tight.”

The caping, quartering, and packing process were tough, but we had him all back to camp in two trips. Dad and I couldn’t have been happier. I accomplished my goal and my dad was proud of me.

I would like to thank Scott Limmer of Comanche Wilderness Outfitters and two of his guides, Mike Williams and Fred Sell. Also, thanks to my uncle for taking time away from his job. He did a great job filming my hunt except for a couple sky shots. Finally, thanks to my dad, who made it all possible. n Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 61

Generation Next: Youth Program NRA Whittington Adventure Camp

By Wayne Armacost Executive Director, NRA Whittington Center

Â

All successful programs begin with a dream. The dream is then molded into a plan which, in turn, is translated into hard work and sweat. From sweat, success is born.

Around a small smoky conference table in a northern Virginia office circa 1987, a dream of a comprehensive youth shooting camp was molded into a plan which was translated into the NRA Whittington Adventure Camp. In June 1988, the hard work began as the first adventure camp was launched, and 23 years, 3 million-plus rounds and 2,220 young men and women later, the NRA Whittington Adventure Camp has tasted success.

62 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Each year 56 teenagers ages 13-17 from around the globe descend on Raton, New Mexico, and the NRA Whittington Center. For two weeks they learn the basics of pistol, rifle, shotgun, muzzle loading, and archery. They learn orienteering and basic wilderness survival. They go through the New Mexico Hunter Education Program, learn to put up a hunting camp complete with canvas wall tent, and they learn to cook in the outdoors. But most importantly, they learn safety, self-respect, and leadership skills.

They arrive as kids and leave as young adults.

Name it and there is an opportunity to shoot it: .50 BMG rifle, Glock pistols, Ruger .22LR pistols and rifles, Springfield armory 1911s, Thompson center muzzle loaders, AR-15s, Beretta, and Mossberg shotguns, and Bowtech bows, to name a few. Campers are broken down into groups according to age and spend a day and a half on each range.

Before a round is ever fired down range, each group spends the first half day in an intensive safety and training seminar.

After which, it’s out of the classroom and onto the range. Make no mistake, this is a shooting camp. Each camper will shoot between 1,200 and 1,300 rounds of ammunition!

Mixed in with all the firearm training, we pack in orienteering, knot-tying and hunt skills.

The NRA Whittington Center is a 33,300-acre outdoor recreation paradise located in northeast New Mexico, equidistant between Denver, Colorado, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Shooting, hunting, hiking, biking, camping, RVing—we have it all. Just want to unwind and let the worries of the world pass you by? Then rent a cabin or bring your RV and watch mule deer and antelope graze, sunsets and sunrises.

Enjoy a round or two of sporting clays, trap or skeet, then head over to the .22 ranges and plink at silhouettes. Overdue for a challenge? Bring your favorite hunting rifle and take a shot at the world famous “white buffalo” at over 1,100 yards.

Like history? You are in the right place. The NRA Whittington rests atop the Santa Fe Trail which transported goods and individuals from Franklin, Missouri west to Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Whittington Center is one of the few places where the public has access to a piece of American history; if one looks hard enough while standing in the grass-covered ruts, you can see the oxen strain against their harnesses as the wagons amble by.

But most importantly they learn safety, self-respect, and leadership skills. They arrive as kids and leave as young adults.

For two weeks they learn the basics of pistol, rifle, shotgun, muzzle loading, and archery shooting. They also have a hunting component that covers orienteering, basic wilderness survival, and the New Mexico Hunter Education Program.

Move from the trail down to the Frank Brownell Museum of the Southwest where you can lose yourself in firearm history and memorabilia. From Conquistadors to Cowboys, from Indian Wars to the World Wars, the Brownell Museum will mesmerize you. The museum has some unique and rare pieces that helped win (and keep!) the West, and it is constantly changing as we add new displays periodically.

The Whittington Center is changing and evolving, and the website, nrawc.org, is a good place to keep abreast of what’s new.

Currently, the Whittington Center is fundraising for a 23,000 square-foot event center that will be a great facility for year-round usage. Additionally, the facility will allow us to expand training opportunities, provide for a jam-packed summer schedule, and open

the Whittington Center to corporate America in ways previously unavailable.

The NRA Whittington Center believes in affordable instruction and training opportunities for civilian self-defense. That is why the Whittington Center has partnered with Professional Marksman, professionalmarksmen.com, to offer handgun instruction that goes beyond basic conceal/carry classes.

What a fantastic place to exercise your Second Amendment freedom!

New Mexico is called the Land of Enchantment; with one visit to the Whittington Center, you will realize why. There is something magical that happens when you visit. You find that time doesn’t matter, that you are relaxed and comfortable, and suddenly you realize that you have fallen under New Mexico’s spell, and you don’t want to leave. n Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 63

JUSTIN E. SPRING | ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF BIG GAME RECORDS

Luis H. Izquierdo and Bruce A. Young – Two for the Book The sharp crack from a fire log’s sap-pocket snapped me back to reality. I had dozed off, it was now past midnight, and my hunting partner Bruce and our guide Tom had not returned to camp. Sitting by the warm campfire, I ran through many scenarios as to what could have happened to them in the wild Alberta bush—and most were not pleasant thoughts.

As a kid growing up in Vermont, I once encountered a bull moose on a golf course. The sheer size and presence of that animal has captivated me since that day, and I swore I would one day hunt them. It took some time for that to happen, but I eventually ventured to Newfoundland, one of the most beautiful places I have traveled, and shot my first bull in 2006. I was now officially hooked on moose hunting!

Shortly after the Newfoundland hunt, I spoke with my hunting partner Bruce Young, a very accomplished hunter and outdoorsman, and we decided that our next moose hunt should take place in western Canada. After many conversations with biologists, outfitters, and references, Bruce and I independently settled on the same outfitter, Wild Kakwa Outfitters, operating out of Grande Prairie, Alberta.

We really liked what Rick and Rita Houweling had to say, the fact that the entire family is involved in the business, the area they hunted, and lastly, we trusted the opinion of the many references we spoke to. We were booked!

Our first hunt with the Houweling team was every bit the adventure we had hoped for. The staff was great, as was the camp and the meals. The country we were hunting was spectacular, as off to the west we could see the foothills of the Canadian Rockies and from the very first morning we were into moose—big bulls at that.

Our hunt did not last long with Bruce connecting on a majestic 52-inch bull on the second day and with me shooting a respectable 48-inch bull the evening of the fourth day. By the very next morning we were both booked for a return hunt in 2010.

Upon arrival in camp for our second hunt with Wild Kakwa Outfitters, we met our new guide Tom Sallows. It didn’t take long for Bruce and I to realize that Tom was the very essence of a mountain man; thus, the name of his hunting video business, Mountain Man Adventures. From the moment we met Tom he started telling us about an area of the bush he wanted to take us, but only if we were prepared to, as he said, “rough it a little.”

Tom’s idea of roughing it a little proved to be more than either of us had anticipated, and after day one, we were ready to stage a mutiny. We had booked an eight-day hunt, and one day into it we were already beat. With some comforting words from Rick and Rita, we decided to stick with Tom. However, in his tenacious way, he had something on his mind which he would not let up on.

Shortly after our meal that night, Tom came to our cabin and instead of apologizing for having run us through a 12-hour obstacle course; he explained that if we wanted bulls like the ones we’d taken on our previous hunt, he would guide us to an area easier to hunt. However, that’s not what he wanted for us. Instead, he insisted that if we had planned so eagerly for this hunt, traveled all 64 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

the way from Miami, Florida, and Atlanta, Georgia, and wanted a chance at a real trophy bull moose, then we should tough it out and stick to the area he knew. To Tom’s credit, it would have been easier for him to cave-in to our request to hunt easier terrain, and we would have likely taken very respectable bulls, much like on our first hunt.

When Tom left our cabin, Bruce and I were convinced that no matter how hard this area was to hunt, we had to go back and hunt where our guide wanted.

After making the long drive the next afternoon, Tom told us he would be taking us to a clear-cut about a mile from the dirt road. As we followed a game trail through the dark woods and small openings, Bruce and I marveled at the amount of tracks—huge, fresh tracks below our feet—and the constant musk scent. The more ground we covered, the more I started to get one of those feelings you experience when you know something is about to happen. It put my senses on high alert.

We had been walking for about 45 minutes when we spotted an opening ahead of us and Tom started to cow-call. As we slowly eased our way out of the timber and gradually into the clear-cut, Tom continued calling and raking small trees with an empty plastic jug. Our objective was to walk across the clear-cut to the other side where we would sit and call for a while. Half way across the clearing, Tom stopped for a much needed rest.

We had no sooner put our packs on the ground than I happened to look over my right shoulder and all I could see at a distance of 165 yards were antlers. I whispered to Tom that there was a bull at the edge of some brush and though we could barely see the animal, Tom saw enough of the bull to tell me to shoot him. I was not convinced this was the trophy Tom had predicted we’d see so I kept asking him if he was large enough and all I could get from him was a very calm yet firm mandate to shoot the bull.

Since we were standing about 10 yards apart, Tom had a different angle of view on the bull than I did. From my vantage point, what I could see was the bull’s head flared back and thus, only his front paddles, while Tom was looking at his entire head and rack. I asked Tom a third time if he thought it was big enough. When he said it was the largest bull he had ever seen, I finally allowed my .338 Winchester Magnum to roar to life.

I found the bull after tracking him a short distance. When Tom ran to where he lay and saw the antlers, all he could say was that I had shot a bull big enough to qualify for Boone and Crockett— of that, he was sure. As we caped and cut the animal, Bruce and I could not believe the size of my bull and marveled at its magnificent set of antlers.

My memorable hunt was done and now it was my partner’s turn. As I sat by the fire worried about Bruce and Tom, it occurred to me that Tom had mentioned he wanted to return to the area where I had shot my bull the previous evening, but to a different clear-cut which was considerably further back in the bush. While I felt some comfort in the fact that Tom had been hunting this area since his childhood and that they were both experienced woodsmen,

This column is dedicated to those trophies that catch our eye as they come across the records desk at Boone and Crockett Club’s headquarters. Some score high, some are downright entertaining, and many are just unique.

I still could not erase the worry from my mind as late as it was.

Bruce had worked hard at getting my bull out of the woods, so I was committed to staying up no matter how late, in case he, too, needed help. I had just added a couple of logs to the dying fire when I noticed a set of headlights coming through the trees. Surely it had to be them.

No sooner did Tom’s truck pull into camp than I saw them drive-up to the elevated winch hoist used for skinning and cutting the animals. As I ran to the hoist I felt a sense of euphoria that not only had they returned safely, but there was another bull on Tom’s truck, and it was likely another trophy.

In my eagerness to see Bruce’s bull, I did not even stop to greet the guys but instead went to the back of the truck and was shocked by what I saw. There lay a bull which looked even larger, with more defined points than mine. All I could think of was that mine had been greenscored that evening by Rick at a gross of 205-plus and a final green score of more than 195 B&C points, which Rick was familiar with, and this bull looked every bit as big.

Bruce’s hunt had been every bit as exciting as mine. After a long day of walking and calling with no results, they came upon a clear-cut with about an hour of daylight left.

At first they didn’t see anything since there were piles of tree limbs preventing full visibility of the clearing. But as they circled it while staying in the dark timber, they spotted a huge bull with three cows at 200 yards. One wellplaced shot from Bruce’s .338 Winchester Magnum and our second trophy bull was on the ground.

As I reflect on this amazing hunt, many things come to mind, but the most important lesson to both of us has been to always heed your guide’s advice. Tom knew what he was doing and on that first day had “tested” us to see what he could get out of us.

Based on what he saw, he set the bar really

Luis Izquierdo, pictured with his Canada moose, was hunting during the 2010 season in Grande Prairie, Alberta with his hunting partner Bruce, when he took his trophy bull, scoring 190-7/8 points. Top Right Bruce Young followed his friend taking his bull, scoring 187-6/8 points, shortly after Luis.

high, and we’re grateful for that. The result of Bruce and me listening to our guide Tom’s advice was that we were both able to take two incredible animals.

Both our bulls have now been accepted by Boone and Crockett Club; Bruce’s scored 187-6/8 and mine 190-7/8. We can’t wait to go back! n

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 65

TROPHY TALK Entry Affidavit It is common the hunter agrees that his/her trophy was from the Club’s website, www.boone-crockknowledge that the taken in accordance with all the tenets of ett.org. Hunters could even have their entry affidavit (EA), the EA, he/she should sign and date the form signature notarized for the EA on the back which is on the back while the measurer actually witnesses the of a blank score chart. of every Boone and signing. Then, and only then, should the The Official Measurer should not mail Crockett Club score measurer sign and date the form on the apthe original score chart to the trophy owner Jack Reneau chart, must be propriate lines. to get the hunter’s signature notarized. The Director completed by every completed score chart should be mailed to The Official Measurer isn’t stating Big Game Records trophy owner that the trophy was taken in fair chase; he/ the records office where staff will solicit any submitting a huntershe is simply certifying that the signature is missing entry requirements, including the taken trophy into B&C’s Awards truly the hunter's. This is the same procedure EA. Under no circumstances should the Programs. It is a significant entry notary publics use before they add their sig- Official Measurer sign the EA and mail it to requirement that must be taken nature and seal to documents. the hunter for his/her signature. seriously. By signing this form, the It is important that the hunter fully hunter is attesting to the fact that his/ understand what he/she is signing, because Item VII of the Entry Affidavit her trophy was taken in fair chase as the EA covers a wide variety of acts and situ- Most of the tenets of the entry affidavit that defined by the Boone and Crockett Club. ations that are considered unfair chase and bar a trophy from entry in B&C are well The notary’s or Official Measurer’s disqualifies a trophy from entry in B&C. If known and have been discussed in previous signature certifies that they witnessed someone fraudulently signs the entry affida- issues of Fair Chase or correspondence the hunter sign the form. vit, that trophy will not be accepted in B&C, with Official Measurers. This is especially Unfortunately, the records office or it will be rejected if it has already been true for trophies taken behind high fences continues to have problems for a wide variety accepted. Also, all prior trophies are subject and with the use of aircraft and motorized of reasons with incorrectly completed forms to deletion from the records book, and future vehicles. Item VII, however, excludes submitted to the records office, which result entries may not be accepted. trophies from entry in B&C that were in significant processing delays and an The reason I am bringing this up is taken, “while swimming, helpless in deep occasional rejection. I would, therefore, like because the records office has nullified EAs snow, or helpless in any other natural or to use this issue’s column to artificial medium.” discuss the proper procedure The phrase “… helpless in Procedure for Completing the Entry Affidavit: for completing the EA, as any other natural or artificial 1. Ask hunter to thoroughly read the entry affidavit. well as some fair chase medium” is open-ended and has 2. Answer hunter’s questions. aspects that are not even given me some concerns over specifically mentioned, in the years, so I would like to mention 3. Ask hunter to sign form if trophy was taken in fair chase. hopes of eliminating any a few examples of entries that that 4. Witness hunter’s signature by signing entry affidavit. future problems. fall into this category. Trophies taken while their antlers are locked Signature Must be with another animal or entangled Properly Witnessed that were not properly witnessed by an in a fence or a ball of barbed wire are only For years, hunters were required to have Official Measurer. Also, the records office eligible for entry in B&C as “picked up” trotheir signature on the EA witnessed by is rejecting increasing numbers of trophies phies. Also, bears killed in dens where the a notary public. However, some trophy for the use of cell phones and two-way practice is legal cannot be entered in B&C owners in remote areas had problems radios. This practice is especially increasing as hunter-taken. locating a notary, and others (Canadians among sheep hunters who use cell phones especially) were charged significant fees and two-way radios to tell hunting Four Circumferences on to have their signature notarized. The companions where big sheep are located; Whitetails records committee, therefore, modified similar situations are occurring among deer By the time you receive this issue of Fair the notary requirement and authorized and bear hunters. While this practice may Chase, the records office will be handling Official Measurers to witness the hunter’s be legal in many states and provinces, numerous whitetail scoring questions from signature on the EA. In essence, the records trophies taken with these methods are not Official Measurers and the general public. committee appointed Official Measurers as eligible for entry in B&C. Many whitetail hunters will be asking about “ex-officio” notary publics.

When measurers score trophies at circumference measurements. Specifically, If the Official Measurer is in contact taxidermy shops for big buck contests or they will want to know if they should only with the hunter of the trophy he is scoring, trophies that are delivered to them by rela- take three circumferences on a 4x4 or if five the measurer should not say, “Here’s a copy tives and friends of the hunter, they do not circumferences can be taken on a 6x6. A of the entry affidavit, please sign it and I’ll have contact with the hunter. When this few will even ask if four circumferences are witness it.” The hunter should be given ample happens, the measurer should simply tell taken on a 3x3. The answer is that a total time to read over the EA and ask questions the owner to get a copy of the EA from the of four and only four circumferences must before he signs it. If after reading the EA, Club’s records office or download a copy be taken on all whitetail deer. The obvious 66 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

BOOK REVIEW Henry Kelsey Big Game Records of Saskatchewan, 2009 Edition

follow-up question is where to take the fourth circumference (H-4) on a 4x4 and the third and fourth circumferences (H-3 and H-4, respectively) on a 3x3.

The fourth circumference (H-4) on a 4x4 is taken halfway between the G-3 point and the end of the main beam as illustrated in Figure A. The third and fourth circumferences on a 3x3 are taken at the same place halfway between the second point (G-2) and the beam tip as illustrated in Figure B. There are 199, 4x4 typical whitetails and no 3x3 typicals accepted in B&C. There are, however, non-typical whitetails with a basic 3x3 typical frame accepted in B&C. The total of the lengths of the abnormal points more than makes up for the lack of a welldeveloped typical frame of these trophies. n

figure A The fourth circumference (H-4) on a 4x4 is taken halfway between the G-3 point and the end of the main beam.

Saskatchewan’s Henry Kelsey Big Game Records Chairman Patrick McKenzie and the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation recently announced the release of their 2009 edition of Henry Kelsey Big Game Records of Saskatchewan. This 300-page records book contains photographs and trophy listings of black bears, elk (typical and non-typical), mule deer (typical and non-typical), whitetail deer (typical and nontypical), moose, and pronghorns. There are separate listings for provincial ranking, final score, gross score, main beam lengths, inside spreads, number of points, circumferences, area taken, year taken, hunter and/or owner’s name, and annual competition winners. Copies of this hardcover book can be purchased for $20 (U.S.) plus $15 (U.S.) shipping & handling from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation via email at sask.wildlife@sasktel.net, or by calling (306) 6928812, or by mailing your check to Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, 9 Lancaster Rd., Moose Jaw, SK S6J 1M8 CANADA.

Big Game Records of British Columbia, 6th Edition

Big Game Records of British Columbia, recently published by the Wildlife Records Club of British Columbia, includes lists of exceptional native big game trophies taken in British Columbia and scored

by Boone and Crockett Club’s copyrighted scoring system. Containing more than 9,000 entries in 19 categories, this book lists over 1,900 new entries received since the fifth edition was published in 2003.

Included are a few feature articles of general interest and a wide variety of pictures and entertaining hunting stories related to many of the more recent entries. It is a book for everyone who has an interest in the outstanding diversity and abundance of big game in British Columbia. Individual copies are available for $45 each. This price includes $10 for shipping and handling. U.S. and Canadian citizens should send their checks in U.S. or Canadian funds, respectively, to Wildlife Records Club of BC, Box 22, Nanoose Bay, BC V9P 9J9, CANADA. Orders are accepted through its Web site at: www.wildliferecordsofbc.com.

Arizona Wildlife Trophies, 9th Edition

Figure B The third and fourth circumferences (H-3 and H-4) on a 3x3 are taken at the same place halfway between the second point (G-2).

The Arizona Wildlife Federation just released a limited-edition 1,000 copies of its 9th edition of Arizona Wildlife Trophies. Among the many features of this publication are lists that include 3,427 specimens of Arizona’s finest big game trophies in 14 big game categories, including 163 new entries since the 8th edition was published in 2005. This edition also includes photos of Arizona’s highest-ranking trophies; honors four deceased Arizona sportsmen who have significantly contributed to wildlife conservation in Arizona; pays special tribute to Ed Stockwell, whose World’s Record typical Coues’ deer is the second-longest standing Arizona trophy record; and much more. To order a copy, write the Arizona Wildlife Federation, P.O. Box 51510, Mesa, AZ 85208; or call (480) 644-0077. Each copy is $45 plus $4 for shipping. Credit card orders accepted.

BOOK REVIEW NOTICE

There are many state, provincial, and private organizations publishing local records books that use Boone and Crockett Club’s copyrighted scoring system with permission of the Club. Since there is no single reference source for these books, and because there are many hunters who collect them, we will review them as time and space permit. Only those books that use the Boone and Club’s copyrighted scoring system and terminology will be considered for review. Please note that the Boone and Crockett Club cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data contained in these books. Some of the books may include trophies that were not scored by certified Boone and Crockett Club Official Measurers. If there is a question about the status of a trophy listed in any of these books, the Boone and Crockett Club’s records books/archives are the final reference source to settle any and all discrepancies.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 67

The following pages list the most recent big game trophies accepted into the Boone and Crockett Club’s 28th Big Game Awards Program, 2010-2012, which includes entries received between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012. 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 Summer 2011 issue of Fair Chase was published.

ABOVE Casey A. Humes was hunting during the 2010 season in Wasatch County, Utah, when he took this cougar scoring 15-4/16 points. below This typical American elk, scoring 371-5/8 points, was taken by Scott K. Harris with his .300 Winchester Mag. He was hunting in Kane County, Utah, during the 2010 season.

BEAR & COUGAR FINAL SCORE

LOCATION

HUNTER

DATE MEASURER

black bear 23 5/16 Monroe Co., WI Picked Up 2010 22 3/16 Morris Co., NJ Troy A. McConnon 2010 22 Barron Co., WI Jeffrey D. Sexton 2010

21 14/16 Rusk Co., WI Dexter L. McKittrick 2010

21 11/16 Murray Lake, SK Jill Oliver 2010 21 5/16 Shawano Co., WI Chad P. Maves 2010 21 4/16 Prince of Phillip A. Dyer 2006

Wales Island, AK 21 3/16 Washington Co., ID Picked Up 2010 21 2/16 Douglas Co., WI Jay W. Bauer 2010 21 Danford Lake, QC Kenneth L. Sausser 2010 20 15/16 Itasca Co., MN Travis D. Shedron 2010 20 15/16 Marinette Co., WI Jan B. Moll 2010 20 15/16 Mendocino Co., CA Adam J. Flynn 2010 20 13/16 Wallaston Lake, SK Eric Moore 2010 20 12/16 Fluvanna Co., VA Matthew T. Hall 2010 20 12/16 Sawyer Co., WI Pamela J. Rahmer 2009 20 12/16 Washburn Co., WI Nikolaie Bulik 2010

20 11/16 Jackson Co., WI John E. Duffek 2010 20 11/16 Lake Co., MI Christopher J. 2010

Chesney 20 11/16 Lewis Co., WA Ernest P. Baydo 2010 20 11/16 Rio Blanco Co., CO William L. Childers 2010 20 10/16 Barron Co., WI Bradley D. Hanson 2010

20 10/16 Luce Co., MI David Allen 2009 20 9/16 Bayfield Co., WI David G. Pischke 2009 20 9/16 Langlade Co., WI Kevin R. Muraski 2010 20 9/16 Lycoming Co., PA Lawrence T. Jagielski 2009 20 9/16 Marathon Co., WI Frank D. Draxler 2009

20 9/16 Cutarm Creek, SK Ralph Soltys 2010 20 8/16 Bayfield Co., WI Jamie J. Nowak 1999 20 7/16 Barron Co., WI David C. Frank 2010

20 7/16 Carlton Co., MN Picked Up 2010 20 6/16 Chisago Co., MN Mark E. Posey 2010

20 5/16 Prince of Phillip A. Dyer 2009

Wales Island, AK 20 5/16 Somerset Co., ME Joseph E. Lard 2009 20 4/16 Baker Co., OR Donnie G. Higgins 2010 20 4/16 Cameron Co., PA Matthew G. Herbstritt 2010 20 4/16 Idaho Co., ID Chance C. Allbright 2010 20 3/16 Forest Co., WI Andrea M. Fencl 2010 20 3/16 Langlade Co., WI Terry R. Brown 2009 20 3/16 Marathon Co., WI Laura L. Arndt 2009 20 3/16 Buffalo Narrows, SK Terry L. Jackson 2009 20 3/16 Somerset Co., ME Brent A. Bolin 2010 20 2/16 Carteret Co., NC Brandon R. Lloyd 2009 20 2/16 Rappahannock Theodore C. Falce, Jr. 2009

Co., VA 20 2/16 Spokane Co., WA Timothy P. Spencer, Jr. 2009 20 1/16 Hyde Co., NC Rickie E. Gray 2009 20 1/16 Red Indian Lake, NL Alan B. Genelow 2009 20 Clinton Co., PA William L. Probst 2010 20 Lincoln Co., WI Kenneth W. Alft 2004 20 Oconto Co., WI Michelle J. Missall 2009

R. Krueger K. Burguess K. Zimmerman K. Zimmerman B. Seidle D. Goers J. Bogucki B. Penske S. Ashley L. Fulmer R. Graber S. Zirbel R. McDrew R. Pesek R. Burnham C. Cousins K. Zimmerman J. Ramsey B. Nash K. Vaughn R. Black K. Zimmerman J. Knevel S. Zirbel T. Heil D. Lynch K. Zimmerman R. Soyka S. Zirbel K. Zimmerman S. Grabow K. Zimmerman J. Bogucki T. Grover E. Buckner M. Blazosky M. Demick S. Zirbel S. Zirbel S. Zirbel G. Adams J. Satterfield D. Boland R. Burnham J. Ellis M. Jones D. Lynch T. Ross T. Heil S. Zirbel

grizzly bear 25 8/16

68 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Ungalik River, AK

Ben H. Ralston

2010 F. Noska

grizzly bear Continued

typical mule deer Continued

25 6/16 24 10/16 23 11/16

191 5/8 202 2/8 190 6/8 197 4/8 190 2/8 194 7/8 189 3/8 211 7/8 187 3/8 203 3/8 187 3/8 200 6/8 187 1/8 219 2/8 187 1/8 202 3/8 186 7/8 197 4/8 185 5/8 190 6/8 185 4/8 205 3/8

185 2/8 210 184 192 3/8 183 4/8 186 2/8 181 2/8 186

Chetwynd, BC St. Marys, AK Meziadin Junction, BC

Sandra Sheen Eric J. Wald PIcked Up

2008 R. Berreth 2010 G. Ponsness 1998 B. Daudelin

Alaska brown bear 29 11/16 28 2/16 27 10/16 26 5/16

Kenai Pen., AK Becharof Lake, AK Alaska Pen., AK Kodiak Island, AK

Picked Up Mike Truett Lance L. Coleman Michael V. DeSantis

2001 2010 2008 2010

T. Spraker W. DiSarro E. Stanosheck G. Anderson

cougar 15 6/16 15 5/16 15 4/16 15 4/16 15 2/16 15 2/16 15 14 15/16 14 15/16 14 14/16 14 14/16 14 14/16 14 14/16 14 13/16 14 13/16 14 11/16 14 10/16 14 8/16 14 8/16

Flathead Co., MT Robert J. Cook 2010 Gunnison Co., CO Joseph C. Watson 2011 Archuleta Co., CO Joe D. Fahrion 2010 Wasatch Co., UT Casey A. Humes 2010 Broadwater Co., MT Joseph W. Beebout 2010 Park Co., WY Lara E. Love 2011 Coconino Co., AZ Eric J. Walker 2011 Boise Co., ID Duane Presnell 2011 Rio Blanco Co., CO Rodney C. Frazho 2010 Custer Co., SD Frank L. Schmidt 2011 Meagher Co., MT John D. West 2010 Rio Blanco Co., CO Scott A. Wimer 2011 Stevens Co., WA Ashley L. Doss 2010 Ravalli Co., MT Tony W. Jones 2010 Tooele Co., UT Traci L.Kuester 2010 Grand Forks, BC Richard M. Kolesar 2009 Union Co., OR Ray C. Clements 2011 Jefferson Co., MT Brady N. Riedel 2010 Rio Blanco Co., CO Michael J. Kaufmann 2010

J. Reneau R. Black T. Watts S. Davis F. King K. Dana P. Dalrymple R. Addison J. Ohmer L. Jass F. King A. Dewald K. Vaughn J. Spring R. Hall G. Block E. Buckner L. Myers R. Pepper

Mesa Co., CO Kane Co., UT Decatur Co., KS Eagle Co., CO Fraser River, BC Pershing Co., NV Eagle Co., CO Owyhee Co., ID Foremost, AB Johnson Co., WY Last Mountain Lake, SK Fusilier, SK Morgan Co., UT Meade Co., SD Elko Co., NV

Peter R. Ratkovich 2010 Todd L. Calico 2010 Teresa I. Bird 2010 Bruce J. Abercrombie 2010 Jared M. Ingram 2010 Jerry Carson 2010 Mitchell W. Sturdivant 2010 Joshua B. Westergard 2010 Andrew A. Geddes 2010 Bradley J. Trybus 2010 Dwight Tonn 2010

D. Stemler I. Mcarthur M. Bain D. Turner R. Berreth L. Clark L. Gatlin R. Hall K. Kultgen D. Razza P. Mckenzie

Leonard J. Bahm Jared Provost James B. Blain Zachary C. Freeman

B. Rehman R. Hall W. Jackson G. Hernandez

2010 2010 2010 2010

non-typical mule deer 244 5/8 248 5/8 244 4/8 250 7/8 239 7/8 247 6/8 237 1/8 244 5/8 233 4/8 242 2/8 231 4/8 234 6/8 230 1/8 235 5/8 225 2/8 232 5/8

221 4/8 228 5/8 217 1/8 229 4/8 216 2/8 225 215 2/8 224

Sheridan Co., WY Walter Mentock Washington Co., CO John E. White Lincoln Co., NV William P. McBeath Grant Co., OR Andrew Bernard Willow Creek, AB Darcy R. Brauer Clinton, BC Pat Skwarok Merritt, BC Michael Degenhardt Diefenbaker John Morrison Lake, SK Uintah Co., UT Lucus Santio Rio Arriba Co., NM John K. Blackburn Gem Co., ID John A. Heath Conejos Co., CO Robert E. Gurule

1955 2010 2010 1934 2010 1986 2010 2010

R. Selner P. Allen L. Clark G. Childers W. Norstrom R. Berreth R. Berreth B. Seidle

2009 2010 1945 2010

R. Hall M. Gamble J. Femrite J. Goodart

typical Columbia blacktail

ELK & MULE DEER

FINAL GROSS SCORE SCORE LOCATION

HUNTER

DATE MEASURER

typical American elk 385 2/8 390 3/8 Shasta Co., CA Myah M. Westlund 384 3/8 396 1/8 Gallatin Co., MT Richard M. Reed 380 4/8 389 6/8 Flathead Co., MT Gary L. Mild 378 4/8 399 1/8 Douglas Co., CO Matthew L. Clough 377 7/8 390 2/8 Park Co., WY Melvin E. Blakesley 371 5/8 381 5/8 Kane Co., UT Scott K. Harris 370 380 1/8 Walla Walla Co., WA Jonathan M.

Rasmussen 367 2/8 383 4/8 Kootenai Co., ID Alex J. D’Andrea 367 2/8 380 5/8 Teton Co., MT Tracy L. Gilbert 366 5/8 376 5/8 Gallatin Co., MT Barri R. Twardoski

2010 2010 2010 2009 2010 2010 2010

S. Boero F. King F. King S. Grebe J. Morey R. Hall S. Wilkins

167 3/8 160 1/8 159 1/8 156 6/8 137 3/8 137 2/8 132 4/8 130 3/8 129 1/8 128 1/8

178 3/8 166 2/8 162 6/8 161 4/8 142 2/8 148 138 132 5/8 132 7/8 137 5/8

Douglas Co., OR James D. Linton 2010 Liumchen Creek, BC Jason W. Noland 2010 Tehama Co., CA David A. Adams 1972 Chilliwack, BC Unknown 1995 Mendocino Co., CA Rickie B. Turlington 1993 Mendocino Co., CA Jaymen B. Cooper 2010 Coos Co., OR Rod E. Gulseth 1984 Jackson Co., OR James D. Harkin 2009 Clackamas Co., OR Adam J. Staudenmier 2010 Pierce Co., WA David L. Loomis 2010

D. Morris R. Berreth G. Childers F. Pringle R. McDrew D. Turner S. Nasby T. Henson T. Brown R. Spaulding

non-typical Columbia blacktail 161 5/8 166 2/8 Humboldt Co., CA 160 6/8 164 2/8 Trinity Co., CA

Coleman I. Andersen 2010 G. Hooper Edward L. Davis 1976 S. Hooper

typical Sitka blacktail deer 100 4/8 102 5/8 Kodiak Island, AK

Michael V. DeSantis 2010 G. Anderson

2010 G. Beck 2010 G. Taylor 2010 R. Spring

non-typical American elk 458 4/8 476 6/8 Kittson Co., MN Picked Up 2010 R. Dufault 410 5/8 427 Gila Co., AZ James P. Mellody, Jr. 2010 W. Keebler 390 6/8 406 1/8 Red Deer River, AB Quinton C. Baird 2010 D. Powell

WHITETAIL DEER

Roosevelt’s elk

typical whitetail deer

321 1/8 315 5/8 312 303 5/8 285 6/8 279 2/8

187 6/8 187 4/8 184 6/8 184 2/8 182 4/8 182 2/8 181 7/8 181 5/8 181 1/8 181 1/8 180 6/8 180 2/8 180 2/8 180 2/8 179 7/8 179 2/8

328 6/8 321 5/8 320 7/8 319 4/8 295 1/8 293

Clatsop Co., OR Coos Co., OR Siskiyou Co., CA Humboldt Co., CA Clowhom River, BC Coos Co., OR

Stephen E. Pitkin Gerald L. Warnock Kenneth A. Berryhill Caleb E. Carper Robert W. Logan Russell T. Lind

2010 2010 2009 2010 2010 2010

T. Rozewski T. Rozewski K. Evanow G. Hooper D. Coupland S. Nasby

typical mule deer 200 7/8 196 3/8 196 2/8 195 7/8 194 5/8 192 2/8 192 1/8 192

226 3/8 201 6/8 201 2/8 206 210 2/8 196 5/8 198 1/8 201 7/8

Coconino Co., AZ Mohave Co., AZ Sonora, MX Gunnison Co., CO Park Co., CO Elmore Co., ID Bindloss, AB Eagle Co., CO

John E. Woodruff Duane L. Shroufe Keith H. Coonce Floyd Colter J. Rodney Francis Blake E. Tubbs J. Aaron Dillabough Peter A. Cuccia

2010 2010 2011 1950 1970 2010 2010 2010

M. Golightly R. Bishop D. Sudduth L. Gatlin R. Selner R. Addison R. MacDonald T. Archibeque

FINAL GROSS SCORE SCORE LOCATION

206 7/8 193 4/8 188 7/8 194 1/8 188 1/8 185 6/8 187 190 6/8 194 2/8 185 1/8 193 1/8 197 3/8 182 7/8 194 194 188 2/8

Coffey Co., KS Hennepin Co., MN Adams Co., MS Marion Co., IA Putnam Co., IN Brown Co., IN Wabasha Co., MN Goodsoil, SK De Kalb Co., IL Kewaunee Co., WI La Salle Co., TX Cook Co., MN Busby, AB Stettler, AB Essex Co., MA Wabasha Co., MN

HUNTER

Jeffrey W. Edwards Michael J. Clarkson James L. Saunders Jason T. Balm John P. Martin Reymundo Romero Timothy J. Orsello Jerry L. Harbottle James R. Myers Joel E. Krautkramer Rene R. Barrientos Daniel W. Soehren Tyler R. Massner Patrick E. Bates Authur J.Colburn James E. Krulish II

DATE MEASURER

2010 2010 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

D. Doughty K. Fredrickson C. Mcdonald K. Freymiller P. Hawkins J. Bogucki R. Berggren J. St. Charles T. Beissel S. Zirbel E. Fuchs D. Boland B. Daudelin D. Powell L. Desmarais L. Streiff

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 69

recently accepted trophies typical whitetail deer Continued

top While on a 2010 hunt in Mohave County, Arizona, Duane L. Shroufe harvested this 196-3/8 point typical mule deer. He was shooting a 7mm Remington Mag. above Christopher A. Fossitt took this typical whitetail deer, scoring 162-5/8 points, in 2010 while hunting in Campbell County, Kentucky. below This pronghorn, scoring 80 points, was harvested by Jack G. Allen while hunting Lincoln County, New Mexico during the 2010 season.

70 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

177 6/8 186 6/8 Georgian Bay, ON Mark L. Todd 2010 P. Martin 177 2/8 198 4/8 Macoupin Co., IL Kaleb A. Sisson 2010 T. Walmsley 177 1/8 183 6/8 Aitkin Co., MN R. & R. Barrett 1956 D. Petrick 176 7/8 183 5/8 Washington Co., IL Nicholas A. Frederking 2010 D.

Hollingsworth 176 6/8 198 2/8 White Co., IL Brian D. Turgeon 2010 R. Blaisdell 176 5/8 187 Aitkin Co., MN Bruce R. Beck 2010 D. Boland 176 3/8 187 6/8 Iowa Co., IA Scott M. Reitzler 2010 P. Farni 176 2/8 180 Leflore Co., MS Lewis H. Buford III 2010 C. Neill 175 6/8 189 1/8 Margo, SK Lorne T. Whitehead 2003 J. Lorenz 175 6/8 181 7/8 St. Louis Co., MN George R. Johnson 1981 D. Petrick 175 4/8 184 6/8 Harrison Co., IA Ronald M. Stevens 2009 M. DeAngury 175 4/8 202 1/8 Lyon Co., KS Larry J. Landes 2010 R. Stayner 175 3/8 184 7/8 Cambria Co., PA Philip E. Sever 2010 G. Block 175 3/8 185 4/8 Jackson Co., WI Luke A. Smith 2010 S. Zirbel 175 2/8 179 Boone Co., KY Patrick L. Arlinghaus 2010 J. Phillips 175 2/8 193 2/8 Gallatin Co., KY Leo Gripshover 2010 W. Cooper 175 2/8 192 1/8 St. Louis Co., MN David J. Shuster 2010 R. Dufault 175 1/8 185 4/8 Ross Co., OH Brad W. Putnam 2010 D. Haynes 174 7/8 188 2/8 Leduc, AB Jason F. Cygan 2010 B. Daudelin 174 6/8 194 2/8 Douglas Co., MN Gordon B. Rachel 2010 R. Berggren 174 6/8 181 3/8 Jasper Co., IN Raymond E. Yeoman 2010 T. Wright 174 3/8 184 4/8 Sauk Co., WI Korey D. Enstad 2010 J. Ramsey 174 1/8 192 2/8 Jackson Co., IA Shawn K. Flagel 2009 C. Pierce 173 5/8 192 5/8 Redberry Lake, SK Terry O. Shewchuk 2010 M. Hanson 173 4/8 183 3/8 Beadle Co., SD Frank A. Smith 2010 R. Pesek 173 4/8 177 5/8 Last Mountain Christopher Hubick 2010 P. Mckenzie

Lake, SK 173 3/8 177 6/8 McLean Co., ND Ryan L. Blotter 2010 D. Eider 173 2/8 176 4/8 La Salle Co., TX Randy G. Lange 2010 H. Saye 173 1/8 176 2/8 Green Co., WI Grant T. Toney 2010 J. Ramsey 172 3/8 182 4/8 Allamakee Co., IA Ronald D. Hill 2009 R. Bergloff 172 3/8 177 7/8 Butler Co., OH Tommy D. Suiter, Jr. 2010 L. Loranzan 172 3/8 192 2/8 Whitley Co., KY Russell Carr 2010 D. Weddle 172 2/8 179 5/8 Buffalo Co., WI Jeffrey A. Jones 2010 K. Zimmerman 172 2/8 176 3/8 Casey Co., KY Adam Crew 2010 D. Weddle 172 2/8 177 3/8 La Salle Co., TX Rene R. Barrientos 2010 E. Fuchs 172 1/8 179 7/8 Harlan Co., KY Jerry D. Mills 2010 J. Lacefield 172 192 2/8 Senlac, SK Patrick D. McKinnon 2010 R. MacDonald 171 7/8 176 6/8 Pierce Co., WI Mark K. Hotter 2010 S. Fish 171 6/8 195 5/8 Osage Co., KS Christopher W. Noonan 2010 L. Fox 171 5/8 180 7/8 Clark Co., KS Nathan T. Whiteneck 2010 R. Kemph 171 5/8 174 5/8 Comanche Co., KS Dennis S. Anderson 2010 C. Muller 171 5/8 191 1/8 Lamont, AB Shawn M. Hanes 2010 W. Voogd 171 4/8 178 Pulaski Co., AR Michael D. Nutter 2010 D. Doughty 171 4/8 187 6/8 Taylor Co., IA Dennis L. Hancock 1992 K. Freymiller 171 3/8 178 7/8 Monroe Co., WI James D. Harrie 2010 C. Pierce 171 3/8 178 5/8 Warren Co., IN Christian Glover 2010 R. Graber 171 2/8 188 3/8 Henry Co., OH Bradley A. Carson 2010 D. Urban 171 2/8 175 1/8 Trempealeau Linda A. Thompson 2010 C. Pierce

Co., WI 171 179 Benewah Co., ID Keith E. Swallows 2010 L. Eidnes 171 184 5/8 Prairie Co., AR Darren J. Walker 2010 D. Doughty 170 7/8 182 2/8 Webb Co., TX Mickey W. Hellickson 2010 D. Draeger 170 6/8 185 6/8 Osage Co., OK Theresa R. Hendrix 2010 J. Aldrich 170 5/8 185 Crawford Co., WI John W. Boland 2010 C. Gallup 170 5/8 193 1/8 Van Buren Co., MI Richard J. Glista 2010 D. Merritt 170 4/8 174 6/8 Henry Co., KY William Kemper 2010 W. Cooper 170 4/8 188 3/8 Red Deer River, AB Lorne Garrett 1978 B. Daudelin 170 3/8 191 2/8 Franklin Co., KY Donald L. Rice 1970 W. Cooper 170 2/8 178 2/8 Bureau Co., IL Paul S. Cobane III 2010 T. Walmsley 170 1/8 176 6/8 McCreary Co., KY Darran Jones 2010 W. Cooper 170 1/8 188 5/8 Monroe Co., NY Cathy A. Turner 2010 G. Rightmyer 170 1/8 178 1/8 Mons Lake, AB Robin Pirnak 2007 D. Bromberger 170 174 1/8 Sheboygan Co., WI Terry M. Rentmeester 2010 S. Zirbel 170 182 5/8 Waupaca Co., WI Thomas K. Freiesleben 2005 S. Zirbel 169 3/8 171 5/8 Hardin Co., KY Anthony Riggs 2010 W. Cooper 169 3/8 187 3/8 Muscatine Co., IA William D. Meck 2010 S. Grabow 169 2/8 179 2/8 Middlesex Co., CT Robert C. Dragon 2010 C. Lieser 169 2/8 184 2/8 Sioux Co., IA Joshua J. Merideth 2010 G. Hempey 169 1/8 184 1/8 Chippewa Co., WI Brian E. Buresh 2010 K. Zimmerman 169 1/8 179 3/8 McLean Co., KY Richard Thompson 2010 W. Cooper 169 181 1/8 Bayfield Co., WI Jeffrey J. Heffernon 2010 T. Heil 168 5/8 179 2/8 Dodge Co., WI Kevin M. Schuett 2010 S. Zirbel 168 5/8 171 3/8 Grant Co., WI Franklin C. Lessard 2008 K. Zimmerman 168 4/8 183 7/8 Bullitt Co., KY Daniel Patterson 2010 K. Stockdale

typical whitetail deer Continued

typical whitetail deer Continued

168 3/8 184 4/8 Barber Co., KS Steve Purviance 2010 R. Kemph 168 3/8 180 1/8 Cass Co., MN Dale T. Bentley 2010 K. Fredrickson 168 2/8 191 7/8 Pike Co., OH Melissa Noel 2010 R. Davis 168 186 2/8 Merrimack Co., NH Gilbert J. Marston 1981 G. Humphrey 167 6/8 171 4/8 Guthrie Co., IA Darren L. Osche 2009 J. Smith 167 6/8 169 5/8 Worth Co., MO Chris A. Burns 2010 J. Ream 167 188 6/8 Dauphin Co., PA Jeffrey L. Sitlinger 2010 R. D’Angelo 167 172 4/8 Mercer Co., IL Greg E. Tipsword 2010 E. Randall 167 169 3/8 Winn Co., LA Darren J. Mouton 2009 T. Vidrine 167 180 5/8 Yazoo Co., MS Patrick F. Norman, Jr. 2010 S. Jones 166 6/8 174 Custer Co., NE Justin D. Dittmar 2010 R. Dierking 166 4/8 181 2/8 Lancaster Co., PA Dennis M. Grimm, Jr. 2010 B. Buhay 166 4/8 174 Marinette Co., WI Zachary W. Zaidel 2010 S. Zirbel 166 4/8 174 Russell Co., KS Terry M. Partin 2010 D. Weddle 166 3/8 176 5/8 Stephenson Co., IL Bill Schmelzle 2006 K. Zimmerman 166 2/8 182 La Porte Co., IN Troy A. Nelson 2010 J. Bogucki 166 1/8 180 3/8 Radisson, SK William H. Savilow 2010 D. Patterson 165 7/8 186 Story Co., IA C. & B. Lampe 2010 K. Freymiller 165 6/8 170 4/8 St. Joseph Co., IN Steven G. Sokol 2010 J. Bogucki 165 5/8 177 1/8 Frio Co., TX James H. Woods III 2010 L. Barr 165 5/8 187 4/8 Lycoming Co., PA Todd R. Marburger 2010 B. Buhay 165 5/8 181 4/8 Monroe Co., MI Michael W. Preadmore 2010 B. Nash 165 2/8 189 Bleckley Co., GA Ronnie L. Mullis 2010 W. Cooper 165 2/8 170 7/8 Wood Co., OH Amy M. Burwell 2010 D. Urban 165 1/8 169 1/8 Grafton Co., NH Mark E. Monahan, Jr. 2010 R. Blaisdell 164 7/8 184 5/8 Broome Co., NY Chad E. Ellerson 2010 G. Dennis 164 7/8 174 4/8 Gasconade Co., MO Thomas V. Becker 2010 W. Kohne 164 7/8 170 5/8 Lincoln Co., WI Jeremy S. Dorgan 2010 T. Heil 164 7/8 172 1/8 Pulaski Co., IN Nicholas B. Elston 2010 J. Bogucki 164 6/8 179 4/8 Delaware Co., OH David A. Ogrydziak 2010 B. Dam 164 6/8 175 3/8 Gentry Co., MO Steve W. Brinson 2010 L. Barr 164 1/8 169 5/8 St. Louis Co., MN Louis Graff 1945 T. Rogers 164 173 4/8 Juneau Co., WI Kenneth R. Landis 2010 P. Barwick 164 172 7/8 Edson, AB Margaret R. Beaton 2010 W. Voogd 164 177 6/8 Wolf Lake, AB Eugene A. Facette 2010 W. Voogd 164 165 5/8 Southampton Delaine Babb 2010 H. Atkinson

Co., VA 163 7/8 173 4/8 Morgan Co., KY Jason C. Frederick 2010 D. Weddle 163 6/8 168 2/8 Trempealeau Scott Moody 2010 T. Heil

Co., WI 163 5/8 174 1/8 Buffalo Co., WI Paul J. Kitslaar 2010 S. Zirbel 163 3/8 166 7/8 Coahoma Co., MS Thomas E. Baine 2010 W. Walters 163 3/8 175 1/8 Richland Co., WI James L. Birch 2010 E. Randall 163 3/8 177 5/8 Shawano Co., WI Blake S. Persha 2010 T. Heil 163 1/8 179 4/8 Adams Co., OH Steve J. McFarland 2010 D. Haynes 163 1/8 168 6/8 Buffalo Co., WI Michael M. Timm 2010 D. Boland 163 1/8 180 2/8 Marion Co., KY Andy Rucker 2010 W. Cooper 163 1/8 171 2/8 Wolfe Co., KY Cecil W. Dickey 2010 J. Lacefield 162 5/8 165 7/8 Campbell Co., KY Christopher A. Fossitt 2010 D. Yancy 162 5/8 169 Hamilton Co., OH Glenn R. Wauligman 2010 L. Loranzan 162 5/8 185 1/8 Peoria Co., IL Brandon C. Wall 2009 D. Hollingsworth 162 5/8 175 3/8 Randolph Co., IN Jeremy S. Stump 2010 M. Wendel 162 4/8 166 2/8 Ward Co., ND Thomas L. Forsberg 2010 S. Bayless 162 2/8 171 7/8 Casey Co., KY Brad Johnson 2010 D. Weddle

162 166 1/8 La Crosse Co., WI George J. Kohlmeier 2010 S. Zirbel 162 172 5/8 Portage Co., OH James E. Nethken 2010 R. Pepper 161 7/8 173 1/8 Chippewa Co., WI Lane A. Wolfe 2010 C. Cousins 161 6/8 179 3/8 Houston Co., MN Samuel A. Gerardy 2010 D. Boland 161 6/8 182 2/8 Shelby Co., IN William D. Barker 2010 P. Hawkins 161 5/8 178 1/8 Huntington Co., IN Mark D. Moore 2010 J.

Bronnenberg 161 5/8 171 Langlade Co., WI Derek J. Muraski 2010 T. Heil 161 4/8 162 1/8 Ballard Co., KY Laura N. Forsythe 2010 C. Wilkins 161 4/8 167 4/8 Hickman Co., KY Larry B. Lewis 2010 R. Flynn 161 4/8 171 1/8 Saline Co., MO Michael T. Malter 2010 B. Harriman 161 3/8 175 7/8 Pike Co., OH Jon B. Bapst 2010 D. Haynes 161 2/8 165 6/8 Chisago Co., MN Jason G. Holmstrom 2010 R. Berggren 161 2/8 182 1/8 Daviess Co., KY Bradley Riley 2010 W. Cooper 161 2/8 167 4/8 Grant Co., WI Michael A. Richards 2010 J. Ramsey 161 2/8 182 2/8 McCook Co., SD Cole J. Grocott 2010 W. Jackson 161 2/8 174 1/8 Worth Co., GA Melissa K. McClure 2010 W. Cooper 161 1/8 165 1/8 Portage Co., WI Charles P. Jurgella 2010 T. Heil 161 1/8 168 Wicomico Co., MD George G. Pagels 2010 F. Horn 161 168 3/8 Chippewa Co., WI Jeff N. Zwiefelhofer 2010 K.

Zimmerman 161 163 1/8 Hopkins Co., KY Barry Marks 2010 W. Cooper 161 168 5/8 Trempealeau Co., WI Scott A. Halama 2010 C. Cousins 160 7/8 180 2/8 Shannon, QC Simon Dupuis 2010 D. Lapointe 160 7/8 172 1/8 St. Joseph Co., IN Jason L. Goodsell 2010 J. Bogucki 160 5/8 169 3/8 Iowa Co., WI Melvin A. Kreul 2010 R. Boucher 160 5/8 165 1/8 Wood Co., WI David M. Murphy 2010 S. Zirbel 160 4/8 164 3/8 Clearwater Co., MN Ronald H. Kemper 1974 C. Kozitka 160 4/8 162 2/8 Sauk Co., WI Victor W. Broas 2010 J. Ramsey 160 3/8 186 2/8 Juneau Co., WI David P. Johnson 2010 J. Ramsey 160 3/8 182 2/8 Morrison Co., MN Patrick A. Jonas 2010 T. Rogers 160 2/8 174 5/8 Adams Co., IN Cody A. Conrad 2010 S. Werstler 160 2/8 167 7/8 Stratton, ON Bernie L. Goebel 2010 G. Fausone 160 1/8 168 Sauk Co., WI Zachary L. Klemp 2010 J. Ramsey 160 1/8 165 Webb Co., TX Duane J. Steffek 2010 O. Carpenter 160 167 Barron Co., WI David G. Herzan 2010 K.

Zimmerman 160 176 2/8 Belmont Co., OH M. Wayne Burkhart 2010 G. Block 160 172 3/8 Marquette Co., WI Sally M. Kasten 2010 R. Krueger 160 165 Nez Perce Co., ID Derek A. Bigger 2010 S. Wilkins 160 180 2/8 Goose Lake, AB Robert Saskiw 2010 D.

Bromberger 160 177 4/8 Saint-Cecile- Daniel Jacques 2010 D. Lapointe

de-Whitton, QC 160 167 2/8 Shelby Co., OH Troy D. Cromes 2010 M. Wendel

Sponsored by

non-typical whitetail deer 242 1/8 251 4/8 241 4/8 250 5/8 232 5/8 241 229 3/8 236 6/8 228 6/8 236 7/8 223 6/8 229 4/8 219 7/8 229 219 228 5/8

Lorain Co., OH Kevin G. Fitch 2010 Ross Co., OH Jason C. McClintic 2009 Cook Co., IL Michael C. Gabriel 2010 Marquette Co., WI Kyle J. Slama 2010 Polk Co., IA David W. Majewski 2010 Noble Co., OH Jason J. Michael 2010 Athabasca River, AB Glenwood L. Sparkes 2010 Powder River Robert L. Miller 1995 Co., MT

S. Swihart D. Haynes J. Bogucki J. Ramsey K. Freymiller C. Teets B. Daudelin R. Selner

Field Photography Tip No. 7 Look at the Camera. Smile. It’s a natural response. You’re here with your trophy. The camera is over there. Where do we always look? At the camera.

The straight on, looking at the birdy, pose is certainly a mandatory shot to take. One we can do without even thinking. But while you’re at it, try looking admiringly at your trophy for a few takes.

You might be surprised which photo will stand out as not only being different than all the rest, but it might just be the one showing you and your trophy’s “best side.”

Larry J. Landes is seen admiring his trophy typical whitetail deer. He took this buck in 2010 while hunting in Lyon County, Kansas. It scores 175-4/8 points.

Fair Chase Summer 2011 n 71 Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 71

non-typical whitetail deer Continued

non-typical whitetail deer Continued

218 5/8 221 6/8 Wood Co., OH Ryan M. Petree 2010 D. Urban 217 1/8 226 3/8 Ranger Lake, SK Wade D. Parkinson 2010 B. Seidle 215 7/8 226 7/8 Margo, SK Lorne T. Whitehead 2010 J. Lorenz 214 7/8 219 7/8 Tippecanoe Co., IN Michael E. Banes 2010 R. Graber 214 6/8 226 2/8 Thorhild, AB Marco E. Annich 2010 B. Daudelin 212 2/8 230 5/8 Harrison Co., IA Nicholas R. Skinner 2010 G. Hempey 212 218 Morgan Co., IL Jerry W. Mussulman 2010 J. Bogucki 211 2/8 215 5/8 Dane Co., WI Brian R. Korfmacher 2010 J. Ramsey 211 2/8 228 7/8 Seneca Co., OH Logan J. Tracy 2010 R. Perrine 210 4/8 216 6/8 Jersey Co., IL Frank L. Tarolla 2010 J. Bogucki 210 4/8 214 La Crosse Co., WI Timothy J. Peterson 2010 R. Case 210 4/8 216 Scott Co., AR Stacy L. Fowler 2010 D. Doughty 209 6/8 217 5/8 Vernon Co., WI Rick L. Ingalls 2010 C. Gallup 209 1/8 218 Worth Co., GA George H. Brannen II 2010 W. Cooper 209 217 3/8 Ray Co., MO Lance E. Duncan 2010 L. Redel 208 6/8 216 5/8 Sheridan Co., KS Brian L. Coffman 2010 D. Boland 208 4/8 217 6/8 Stevens Co., WA Thomas M. Cools 2010 L. Carey 208 3/8 216 3/8 Franklin Co., OH Stephen E. Esker 2010 R. Deis 208 2/8 211 2/8 Monroe Co., IL Dwayne R. Reaka 2010 J. Mraz 207 7/8 212 6/8 Lyon Co., KS Brian K. Culver 2010 G. Dieter 206 7/8 214 6/8 Thorhild, AB Trevor J. Dubovsky 2010 B. Daudelin 206 3/8 214 7/8 Thickwood Hills, SK Brian Bostock 2010 B. Seidle 206 2/8 214 3/8 Qu’Appelle Lake, SK Jason Wenc 2010 P. Mckenzie 205 3/8 214 6/8 Duck Lake, SK Terry Bergen 2010 B. Seidle 205 3/8 213 3/8 Muriel Lake, AB Maurice Nadeau 2010 D. Powell 205 2/8 214 Washington Co., WI Michael A. Wiedmeyer 2010 S. Zirbel 205 208 Peoria Co., IL Mark Krusa 2010 T. Grover 204 7/8 211 Montgomery Co., IA Steve R. Branson 2009 K. Freymiller 203 6/8 213 3/8 Leslie Co., KY Jonathan R. Howard 2009 S. Bowen 203 5/8 211 Fulton Co., IL Tizoc C. Novoa 2008 M. Staser 203 4/8 205 7/8 Allamakee Co., IA Nicholas Wild 2009 L. Miller 202 7/8 209 3/8 Greensville Co., VA Jason E. Corbett 2010 H. Atkinson 202 5/8 210 2/8 Arkansas Co., AR Billy M. Dobson 2009 L. Cates 202 4/8 213 2/8 Morgan Co., IL Rex A. Barnard 2010 T. Walmsley 202 3/8 213 6/8 Montgomery Michael James 2010 K. Ison

Co., KY 202 209 1/8 Coshocton Co., OH Daniel R. Kline 2010 R. Pepper 201 1/8 203 6/8 Cooper Co., MO James O. Wirz 2010 D.

Hollingsworth 200 5/8 206 6/8 Boone Co., KY Virgil Stamper 2010 W. Cooper 200 3/8 209 5/8 Qu’Appelle River, SK Ronald Henry 2010 R. Soyka 200 2/8 205 Hot Spring Co., AR James P. Nolan 2010 D. Doughty 200 203 4/8 Arkansas Co., AR Kenneth R. Jones 2008 D. Doughty 199 7/8 208 3/8 Geary Co., KS Clarke D. Jackman 2010 R. Hale 199 3/8 210 1/8 Hughes Co., OK Othor R. Boyd 2010 T. Cartwright 199 2/8 207 Redberry Lake, SK Greg Krysak 2010 B. Seidle 199 2/8 208 Ziebach Co., SD Christopher A. Hulm 2008 L. Gunner 198 4/8 210 5/8 Pickaway Co., OH Corey J. Ruoff 2010 M. Wendel 198 3/8 206 4/8 Bayfield Co., WI Thorsten Johnson 1938 D. Yancy 198 203 6/8 Maverick Co., TX Donald M. Holden 2010 H. Saye 198 204 Sauk Co., WI Scott D. Mac Taggert 2010 A. Crum 197 5/8 202 Fulton Co., IL Chris L. Robertson 2010 T. Walmsley 197 3/8 204 1/8 Monona Co., IA Ronald M. Stevens 2010 M. DeAngury 197 2/8 200 3/8 Frio Co., TX Richard B. 2010 V. Garcia

Tenenbown 197 2/8 201 3/8 Jefferson Co., KS Michael K. Hickman 2001 L. Fox 196 6/8 201 7/8 Effingham Co., IL Clint M. Goeckner 2010 B. Neitzel 196 5/8 206 Clark Co., MO A. Darren Cottrell 2010 L.

Lueckenhoff 196 2/8 200 6/8 Jewell Co., KS David N. Kauss 2010 F. Fanizzi 196 1/8 200 Wabash Co., IN Jimmy D. Wallen 2010 R. Graber 196 201 Pembina River, AB Michael E. Lepine 2010 W. Voogd 196 202 3/8 Wandering River, AB James A. Pike 2010 S. Swinhoe 195 6/8 205 2/8 Pottawatomie Jacob L. Boeschling 2008 B. Konen

Co., KS 195 2/8 202 6/8 Callahan Co., TX Samuel S. Rhodes 2010 R. Naizer 195 205 5/8 Kent Co., DE William H. Ditlow III 2010 W. Jones 195 202 5/8 Zavala Co., TX Alberto Bailleres 2010 J. Stein

194 2/8 197 7/8 Caldwell Co., MO Paul J. King 2010 S. Jump 194 2/8 199 2/8 Grant Co., WI Wayne A. Willkomm 2010 J. Reneau 194 1/8 200 7/8 Oklahoma Co., OK Billy Ray Jeffries 2010 J. Ford 192 6/8 198 1/8 Kandiyohi Co., MN Adam J. Braegelman 2008 D. Ohman 191 4/8 198 1/8 Harrison Co., MO Hal D. Boggess 2010 J. Martin 191 2/8 195 3/8 Jackson Co., IA Aaron P. Krogman 2010 S. Grabow 191 2/8 200 6/8 Yuma Co., CO Ralph J. Holsclaw 2010 W. Hepworth 191 194 2/8 Taylor Co., IA Austin D. 2010 S. Grabow

Niederhauser 190 7/8 198 4/8 Sauk Co., WI Randall J. Hohenstein 2010 J. Ramsey 190 3/8 196 3/8 Waupaca Co., WI Kyle R. Wiskirchen 2010 W. Resch 189 6/8 200 6/8 Pittsylvania Co., VA Thomas G. Johnson 2010 W. Knox 189 5/8 195 6/8 Rooks Co., KS Brian P. Barley 2010 P. Allen 189 3/8 192 6/8 Rock Island Co., IL Larry C. Rumler 2010 T. Grover 189 2/8 199 Eau Claire Co., WI Ricky R. Dittberner 2010 T. Heil 189 191 5/8 Warren Co., MO Wayne K. Nolting 2009 L. Smith 188 3/8 190 6/8 Marquette Co., WI Anthony H. Bergh 2010 J. Ramsey 187 1/8 201 Lancaster Co., NE Jason E. Henkel 2010 R. Krueger 186 5/8 192 6/8 Denton Co., TX Jimmie W. Singletary 2010 T. Caruthers 186 2/8 189 4/8 Iowa Co., WI James R. Boettcher 2010 S. Zirbel 186 2/8 195 4/8 Sherburne Co., MN Glen R. Senske 2010 D. Ohman 186 1/8 193 Miami Co., OH David W. Gibson 2010 R. Clark 185 2/8 188 5/8 Lac la Nonne, AB Keith E. Bach 2010 D.

Bromberger 185 2/8 193 6/8 Swan River, SK Thomas P. Lafleur 2010 G. Humphrey

typical Coues’ whitetail 119 6/8 108 4/8 108 105 6/8 104 6/8 102

125 7/8 109 4/8 112 6/8 106 6/8 108 1/8 103 6/8

Sonora, MX Sonora, MX Cochise Co., AZ Sonora, MX Sonora, MX Sonora, MX

Paul D. Wint, III John P. O’Higgins Ronald K. Haymore Frank S. Noska, IV Ski M. Angle Robert J. Grace

2011 2011 1992 2011 2011 2009

D. Mitchell J. Stein R. Haskin C. Brent D. Sudduth D. Nielsen

non-typical Coues’ whitetail 117 4/8 119 7/8 Sonora, MX 115 3/8 121 Gila Co., AZ

Cliff E. Jacobson Richard F. Sawaske

2008 D. Biggs 2010 J. Booey

HUNTER

DATE MEASURER

MOOSE & CARIBOU FINAL GROSS SCORE SCORE LOCATION

Canada moose 211 2/8 219 3/8 206 4/8 209 2/8 205 7/8 208 205 213 4/8 204 7/8 215 1/8 204 6/8 208 4/8 201 208 4/8 198 3/8 201 197 5/8 201 7/8

197 2/8 205 7/8 192 6/8 201 190 7/8 200 1/8 188 5/8 190 188 195 4/8

187 6/8 189 187 5/8 190 186 5/8 188 3/8

Teslin River, BC David A. Roberts 2010 Little Bear Lake, SK Paul Lessing 2010 Fort Babine, BC Richard A. Plug 2010 Franklin Co., ME R. Hamel & A. Hamel 2010 Manning, AB Travis Dezall 2010 Kedgwick River, NB David V. Loch 2010 Aroostook Co., ME L. & D. Stearns 2008 Dease Lake, BC Bruce L. Bertolotti 2010 Little Dease John M. Weinheimer 2010 Lake, BC Revelstoke, BC Don J. Melchiori 2001 Coos Co., NH Jack B. Middleton 2010 Grande Prairie, AB Luis H. Izquierdo 2010 Dease Lake, BC James D. Bauer 2010 Lesser Slave Ryan L. Warawa 2010 Lake, AB Grand Prairie, AB Bruce A. Young 2010 Piscataquis Co., ME Trevor W. Jenkins 2010 Franklin Co., ME David J. Chapais 2010

G. Markoski B. Seidle C. Walker R. Hancock J. Dezall R. Naplin G. Humphrey D. Milton S. Wilkins J. Hammill L. Marston J. Bozzo C. Walker D. Bromberger M. Haun G. Humphrey G. Humphrey

Alaska-Yukon moose 220 1/8 222 5/8 219 2/8 224 1/8 215 5/8 220 4/8 215 2/8 218 2/8 212 5/8 221 2/8 210 221 1/8

72 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

American Creek, AK Picked Up Cantwell, AK Daniel R. Evans Wind River, YT Pat Garrett Whitehorse, YT Dustin L. Schwartz Farewell Station, AK M. Newton Merrell Kuskokwim R. Gene Winget River, AK

2010 2010 2010 2010 2000 2007

R. Boutang C. Brent B. Daudelin S. Buchanan L. Griffin K. Vaughn

recently accepted trophies Shiras’ moose 156 7/8 161 1/8 Pend Oreille Co., WA William E. Conway 150 1/8 153 6/8 Fremont Co., ID Roger D. Miller

2010 L. Carey 2010 R. Selner

mountain caribou 402 3/8 409 4/8 Fire Lake, YT Joseph J. Dolce 2010 E. Swanson 394 4/8 408 3/8 Mackenzie Mts., NT Joseph Glover, Jr. 2010 D.

Bromberger 393 6/8 399 7/8 Blackfly Lake, BC Michael J. Akerman 2010 C. Veasey 368 4/8 378 4/8 Mackenzie Mts., YT Derrill W. Herman 2010 D. Powell 360 3/8 368 6/8 Kitchener Lake, BC Joseph T. Mangold 2010 M. Demick

woodland caribou 309 1/8 277 2/8 269 1/8 266 2/8

323 6/8 287 6/8 283 7/8 283 5/8

Sam’s Pond, NL James H. Duke, Jr. Red Indian Lake, NL Alan B. Genelow Gaff Topsail, NL Chris P. Hoffman Whitehead Pond, NL Pat Garrett

2010 2010 2010 2010

H. Saye D. Lynch C. Lieser B. Daudelin

barren ground caribou 376 1/8 386 4/8 Noatak River, AK

Thomas P. Ayres

2010 N. Fogle

Central Canada barren ground caribou 373 7/8 382 6/8 Arviat, NU 370 6/8 383 MacKay Lake, NT

Terry Voskuil Dave Lloyd

2007 P. Barwick 2008 B. Daudelin

Randy D. Selmi was shooting his 7mm Remington Mag. when he took this desert sheep, scoring 173-5/8 points. He was hunting in Nye County, Nevada, during the 2010 season.

Quebec-Labrador caribou 412 5/8 429

Lake Demitte, QC

Jim Rollins

1990 R. Pepper

Rocky Mountain goat Continued 48 4/8 48 4/8 47

48 5/8 48 7/8 47 3/8

Cordova, AK Weber Co., UT Sanders Co., MT

Joshua S. Gutzwiler 2010 G. Childers Cody W. Munk 2010 R. Hall George J. Gebhardt 1972 F. King

musk ox

HORNED GAME

FINAL GROSS SCORE SCORE LOCATION

HUNTER

DATE MEASURER

pronghorn 91 4/8 89 87 6/8 87 4/8 87 2/8 85 6/8 85 4/8 85 83 6/8 83 82 6/8 82 81 2/8 81 81 80 6/8 80 2/8 80 2/8 80 80 80

92 3/8 90 2/8 88 2/8 87 7/8 88 4/8 86 3/8 85 6/8 85 7/8 85 84 1/8 83 4/8 82 3/8 81 6/8 81 2/8 82 7/8 82 1/8 81 2/8 81 81 3/8 82 80 5/8

Sweetwater Co., WY Calvin C. Taylor 2010 J. Mankin Coconino Co., AZ Troy Holyoak 2007 R. Stayner Jones Co., SD Brandon W. Vevig 2010 L. Gunner Socorro Co., NM J.D. Woods, Jr. 2010 R. Stayner Carbon Co., WY William H. Smith 2010 R. Hanson Hudspeth Co., TX Ernie Davis 2010 D. Synatzske Mora Co., NM Lyle C. Foster 2010 R. Stayner Socorro Co., NM Jonas C. Woods 2010 R. Stayner Coconino Co., AZ Robert K. MacMillan 2010 R. Stayner Las Animas Co., CO Stephen D. Fernandez 2010 W. Jones Milk River, AB James K. Clarke 2010 K. Kultgen Sierra Co., NM Robert B. Kincaid 2010 M. Pittman Coconino Co., AZ Mark L. Walter 2010 M. Golightly Catron Co., NM Rene R. Barrientos 2010 E. Fuchs Fremont Co., WY Frank A. Atwill 2010 B. Wilkes Lea Co., NM Jeff H. Rush 2010 L. Lueckenhoff Eureka Co., NV Grant D. Anderson III 2010 C. Lacey Fremont Co., WY Lori L. Nielson 2010 B. Wilkes Carbon Co., WY William A. Mordell 2010 P. Allen Lincoln Co., NM Jack G. Allen 2010 O. Carpenter Washoe Co., NV Dana D. Taylor 2010 L. Clark

bison 127 128 1/8

123 2/8 123 6/8 121 6/8 122 2/8 121 122 6/8 117 4/8 118 3/8 115 6/8 117 3/8 115 115 6/8

Nordenskiold River, YT Coconino Co., AZ Teton Co., WY Teton Co., WY Custer Co., SD Teton Co., WY Grand Co., UT

Thomas D. Wyers

2010 B. Neitzel

Carl R. Guilliams Rex T. Lungren Harold R. Stauff David R. Lautner Charles J. Mixter Kevin T. Klumper

2011 2011 2010 2010 2010 2010

P. Dalrymple R. Bonander C. Huff B. Zundel R. Anderson R. Hall

119 4/8 122 6/8 Umingmaktok, NU Patrick J. Bryan 2010 W. St.

Germaine 107 111 4/8 Nunivak Island, AK Jim V. West 2010 G. Anderson

bighorn sheep 195 4/8 187 3/8 185 3/8 184 7/8 182 4/8 181 7/8 180 2/8 180 2/8 179 6/8 179 3/8 177 2/8

196 2/8 187 4/8 186 3/8 185 3/8 182 5/8 182 180 4/8 180 3/8 180 1/8 179 5/8 177 7/8

Chouteau Co., MT Raymond S. Alt 2010 R. Selner Fergus Co., MT Lee D. Turner 2010 R. Rauscher Graham Co., AZ Dennis M. Jacob 2010 A. Moors Chouteau Co., MT George J. Gebhardt 2005 F. King Wallowa Co., OR David W. Clumpner 2010 J. Cook Teton Co., MT Joshua P. McKay 2010 J. Pallister Apache Co., AZ Thomas L. Friddle 2010 M. Cupell Blaine Co., MT Dusty I. Egbert 2010 C. Sundstrom Gallatin Co., MT Daniel S. Strong 2010 F. King Deer Lodge Co., MT Wayne R. Estep 2010 J. Reneau Larimer Co., CO John D. Borrego 2010 P. Allen

desert sheep 188 7/8 189 5/8 Gila Co., AZ 186 3/8 187 1/8 Sonora, MX 184 3/8 185 7/8 Gila Co., AZ 182 1/8 183 3/8 Sonora, MX 180 6/8 181 2/8 Pima Co., AZ 180 180 3/8 Sonora, MX 177 6/8 178 2/8 Sonora, MX

176 6/8 177 2/8 Clark Co., NV 175 175 7/8 Lincoln Co., NV 174 5/8 176 1/8 Nye Co., NV 173 5/8 175 5/8 Nye Co., NV 172 1/8 172 3/8 La Paz Co., AZ 170 7/8 171 1/8 Lincoln Co., NV 170 7/8 171 4/8 Mohave Co., AZ 169 7/8 170 7/8 Yuma Co., AZ 169 4/8 169 5/8 Pima Co., AZ 169 169 Mesa Co., CO 168 1/8 168 7/8 Baja Calif. Sur, MX

Serge W. Wright 2010 James B. Warner 2011 Robert D. Griego 2010 Douglas J. Leech, Jr. 2010 Matthew J. Holcomb 2010 Shelly D. Sayer 2011 Robert W. 2009 DuHadaway Zachary W. Anderson 2010 Phillip J. Norkey 2010 James A. Helinger, Jr. 2010 Randy D. Selmi 2010 David M. DiVito 2010 Candi A. Ashby 2010 Don H. Oostenink 2010 Brian L. Johnson 2010 Wilfred M. Greenlee 2010 Richard B. Sapa, Sr. 2010 Scott A. Limmer 2007

M. Golightly F. King D. May L. Fulmer P. Dufek F. King W. Jones J. Tiberti J. Knevel L. Prossen T. Humes R. Stayner J. Maslach C. Pierce C. Goldman D. May J. Vore B. Smith

Rocky Mountain goat 51 6/8 51 7/8 51 2/8 51 6/8 50 50 1/8

50 50 49 2/8 49 4/8

Weber Co., UT Teton Co., WY Revillagigedo Island, AK Weber Co., UT Spatsizi Wilderness, BC

Jack D. Manning 2007 R. Hall Brian D. Tallerico 2010 R. Hanson Dennis J. Landwehr 2009 J. Baichtal Allison S. Jorgensen 2010 R. Hall Michael J. 2010 C. Walker Pampalone, Jr.

Stone’s sheep 164 5/8 165 3/8 West Toad River, BC Remo R. Pizzagalli 2003 R. Boucher 164 1/8 164 4/8 Muncho Lake, BC Harold J. Humes 2001 L. Clark 162 3/8 163 1/8 Tetsa River, BC Brad B. Kelley 2009 J. Rensel

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 73

The trophies in the field photos on the following pages have all been accepted in Boone and Crockett Club’s 28th Big Game Awards Program.

Check out the Boone and Crockett Club’s official web site at:

www.booneandcrockettclub.com

74 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Top row

While on a 2009 hunt in Piute County, Utah, Ryan A. Paxman harvested this 360-1/8 point typical American elk.

He was shooting a .50 cal. muzzleloader.

This Rocky Mountain goat was taken in Wyoming’s Teton County during the 2010 season

by Brian D. Tallerico. This goat scores 51-2/8 points and fell to a .300 Winchester Mag. Dustin L. Schwartz was hunting near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, when he harvested this Alaska-Yukon moose, scoring 215-2/8 points, in 2010. Schwartz was shooting a .300 Ultra Mag.

MIDDLE row

In 2010, John E. Woodruff took this typical mule deer while hunting in Coconino County, Arizona. The buck scores 2007/8 points.

This non-typical Coues’ whitetail deer, scoring 117-4/8 points was harvested in 2008

by Cliff E. Jacobson. This Sonora buck was taken with a .300 Weatherby Mag. Terry L. Jackson arrowed this black bear in 2009 while hunting near Buffalo Narrows, Saskatchewan. The bear scores 20-3/16 points.

BOTTOM ROW

Thomas L. Friddle harvested this bighorn sheep, scoring 180-2/8 points, in 2010 while hunting in Apache County, Arizona.

FEATURE PHOTO

This typical whitetail deer, scoring 160 points, was taken by David G. Herzan in 2010. Herzan was bowhunting in Barron County, Wisconsin.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 75

A look back...

1928 Leo G. Dick barren ground caribou Nelson River, Alaska Peninsula Greatest Spread, 42 inches

This trophy along with many others will be featured in Vintage Hunting Album, coming this fall...

FEATURE PHOTO

Mike Truett was hunting near Alaska’s Becharof Lake in 2010 when he harvested this Alaska brown bear scoring 28-2/16 points. Truett was shooting a .375 Holland & Holland Mag.

76 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Top row

In the fall of 2010, Joshua B. Westergard harvested this 187-1/8 point typical mule deer with a .300 Winchester Mag. Westergard was hunting in Owyhee County, Idaho.

While hunting in Coos County, Oregon, during the 2010 season, Gerald L. Warnock harvested this Roosevelt’s elk with his .300 Weatherby Mag. The bull scores 315-5/8 points.

Daniel R. Evans was shooting a .30-06 Springfield on his 2010 hunt near Cantwell, Alaska, that resulted in this Alaska-Yukon moose, scoring 219-2/8 points.

MIDDLE row

This pronghorn, scoring 80 points, was taken on Washoe County, Nevada, by Dana D. Taylor in 2010.

Cathy A. Turner took this typical whitetail deer in 2010 while bowhunting in Monroe County, New York. Her buck scores 170-1/8 points.

Duane Presnell was hunting in Boise County, Idaho in 2011 when he harvested this cougar scoring 14-15/16 points. Presnell was shooting a .22 Mag.

BOTTOM ROW

Thomas P. Powers took this Stone’s sheep scoring 160-6/8 points while on a 1996 hunt near Racing River, British Columbia.

Powers was shooting a 7mm Remington Mag. While hunting near Umingmaktok, Nunavut, in early 2010, Patrick J. Bryan harvested this musk ox, scoring 119-4/8 points, with his .270 Weatherby Mag.

Fair Chase Fall 2011 n 77

NEW! Records of North American Big Game 13th Edition

A BOON E A N D C ROCK ET T CLU B PU BL ICAT ION

Records of North American Big Game

This volume of Records of North American Big Game is the thirteenth in a series of world renowned records books begun by the Boone and Crockett Club in 1932. The tabular listings are based on the Boone and Crockett Club’s copyrighted method of scoring. First adopted in 1950, this is the universally recognized standard for judging North American big game.

Hunters, wildlife biologists, state and provincial game managers, federal wildlife officials, and anyone with a sincere interest in biological data of big game species will find this book an invaluable reference source.

1 3 th Edition

Records of North American Big Game, 13th Edition features: n

n

n

n

n

Listings of nearly 28,000 native North American big game trophies in 38 categories, with detailed measurements, location, year taken, and more — an increase of nearly 6,000 trophies from the previous edition. Also, B&C gross scores are included for the first time.

Five new World’s Records for grizzly bear, non-typical American elk, tule elk, mountain caribou, and musk ox (tie).

Over 200 field photographs, plus over 300 portrait photographs of the top-ranking trophies for each category.

Informative chapters that every outdoorsman will enjoy including topics such as maintaining Fair Chase standards in today’s technologically advanced world, the truth about the use of lead ammunition, the science and management behind Newfoundland’s woodland caribou program, and details about abuses to the Equal Access to Justice Act by special interest groups, how it affects conservation, and what’s being done to fix the problem. Also included are chapters about the policies of the Club’s Big Game Records Committee and general measuring techniques.

Thirty-two pages featuring stunning, color photography of big game animals by some of today’s top wildlife photographers.

Left: Riley F. Ottenbreit with his typical whitetail deer from Saskatchewan. Right Top: Robert J. Evans’ award-winning black bear scoring 22-13/16.

Right Below: Paul T. Deuling’s new World’s Record mountain caribou.

Records of North American Big Game 13th Edition n

n

768 pages

BRR13 | $49.95 Associates $39.95

Visit the Club’s web site for a complete list of our books.

78 n Fair Chase Fall 2011

Hardcover

n

www.BooneandCrockettClub.com

The Greatest Hunting Convention on the Planet.

January 5-8, 2012 Dallas Convention Center

For more information, visit us online at www.biggame.org

Accuracy is Everything.

Light Weight & Accuracy is Kimber.

The Model 84L is the lightest standard-caliber bolt action sporter ever offered. Montana models (bottom) weigh only 5 pounds, 10 ounces.

Classic Select Grade models weigh just 8 ounces more.

Calibers: .25-06 Rem. .280 Ack. Imp.

.270 Win. .30-06 Spfd.

The Model 84L Classic Select Grade™ is stocked in rich French walnut with hand-cut checkering and a hand-rubbed oil finish.

Magazine capacity is 5 rounds.

The Model 84L Montana™ has a stainless steel barreled action and Kevlar/carbon fiber stock with both pillar and glass bedding. Magazine capacity is 4 rounds.

Built around an action with minimal dimensions for the cartridges it chambers, the Model 84L™ is the first production rifle to combine true light weight and accuracy. Standard features include a full-length Mauser claw extractor for the unequaled reliability of controlled-round feeding, along with a positive 3-position wing safety. The 24-inch match grade barrel is optimum length to ensure maximum velocity for the flattest trajectory, not cut short to save weight like so many others. The Kimber® Model 84L is the best choice – no matter how you weigh the options. ©2011 Kimber Mfg., Inc. All rights reserved. Kimber names, logos and other trademarks may not be used without permission. Names of other companies, products and services may be the property of their respective owners. Kimber firearms are shipped with an instruction manual and California-approved cable lock. Copy of instruction manual available by request.

Kimber, One Lawton Street, Yonkers, NY 10705 (800) 880-2418

THE CHOICE OF AMERICA’S BEST

kimberamerica.com