Many of today’s wildlife management professionals don’t understand hunting, but efforts are underway to change that.

I remember a wildlife biology class I took in college. The class was full of people who were interested in animals, but who didn’t seem to have ever spent much time outdoors. When I showed up for a field trip to a local forest one misty day wearing camo rain gear, I attracted some strange looks from my peers. My professor, however, caught on right away, asking me if I was a hunter. When I said yes, he had me point out buck rubs and deer trails to the other students, most of whom simply stared in amazement. My professor wasn’t a hunter himself, but he recognized that my background had already given me a general understanding of some of the concepts he was trying to get across.

There was a time when most biologists, foresters, land managers, and other resource professionals came from the ranks of hunters. Many of them grew up hunting, and their experiences helped develop their interest in their chosen field. But that doesn’t happen as much any more. Many intelligent and otherwise highly qualified people who know nothing about hunting are entering these fields and getting high-level jobs at state wildlife agencies, where they make decisions about many of the issues that affect wildlife and hunting.

A 2004 survey of university wildlife departments by the Wildlife Management Institute showed that fewer than half of all students graduating with wildlife and natural resource degrees have ever hunted, and most don’t even know a hunter or understand why people hunt. Of equal concern, many of the instructors in high-level natural resource programs at universities appear to have little or no knowledge of, or interest in, hunting. This translates into a large number of current and future leaders and decision-makers of state and federal agencies who don’t understand how hunting and conservation are intertwined.

Ten years ago, a group of resource professionals realized the problems this might cause in the future. The Wildlife Management Institute, with the support of the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, started holding a series of workshops for students in wildlife management programs who had no exposure to hunting. The effort grew into Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (CLfT), a professional development program designed for both students and professionals who are already working in the wildlife management field.

To date, CLfT has conducted eighty-two workshops, providing crucial conservation education to more than 1,200 participants. The four-day workshops that CLfT provides are free, requiring only a few days of the student’s or professional’s time, but they are having a dramatic impact. They don’t aim to turn a nonhunter into a hunter–the goal is simply to provide the participants with insights as to why hunting is important from a biological, social, cultural, economic, and recreational standpoint, and how it relates to conservation. The classes include both classroom and field time, and students get some exposure to safe firearms handling, shooting, and hunting techniques.

Exit surveys from the program show that 95 percent of CLfT participants now “get” why hunting is so important to conservation, and understand its cultural and economic roles in society as well. A few of them have even become hunters themselves.

This is one of those efforts that, while it reaches a relatively small number of people, stands to make a disproportionate difference to the future of hunting in America. To learn more, visit www.clft.org.

Leave a Comment

Planning An African Safari

Have you thought about going to Africa, but assumed that it was too expensive, too hazardous, or too difficult? Ever since I returned from my first safari, I have been asked a number of basic questions about these and other issues by fellow hunters who are considering such a trip. If you haven’t been to Africa, the answers to these queries may surprise you.

Isn’t an African safari incredibly expensive?

Depending on where you go and what you hunt, hunting journey to the Dark Continent is not nearly as expensive as you might think. I won’t pretend it’s cheap–the trophy fees, airfare, taxidermy, tips, and incidentals do add up–but an African safari is much more accessible to the average person now than it has ever been.

Most hunters choose a plains-game hunt for their first safari. These hunts typically allow a hunter to shoot a variety of antelope species–kudu, gemsbok, and impala, just to name a few–and they tend to be exciting because of the sheer variety of game available. There are usually two costs to take into consideration for such a hunt. The daily rate in many areas is quite reasonable, and it generally covers all of the expenses of a day on safari–your food, lodging, vehicle, and the services of your PH (professional hunter, or guide), tracker, and skinners.

In addition to the daily rate, every time you shoot an animal you’ll be charged a trophy fee. The trophy fees for animals I shot on my recent safari ranged from $300 for a warthog to $1,000 for a kudu. You might shoot three or four species–or a dozen or more–on a plains-game safari depending on your financial resources, your goals, and the amount of game in the area.

Many safari agents are now offering “package” hunts. These hunts incorporate the daily rate and trophy fees into one “flat” fee for the hunt–which is closer to the way we’re used to paying for guided hunts in the United States. Often, these hunts are excellent deals.

The other major costs of a safari include airfare to Africa (in my case, $2,100 round-trip from Los Angeles to Windhoek, Namibia), and the cost of packing and shipping your trophies home and the taxidermy that follows. One good thing is that if you’re taking a family member such as your spouse, your costs (other than airfare) won’t necessarily double–often, the daily rate for two people is only slightly more than for one. Many safaris are happy to accommodate a nonhunting guest for a fee.

Today it’s possible to go on an African safari and shoot half a dozen species of plains game for much less than you’d pay for a good used car. For example, Cabela’s Outdoor Adventures recently offered an African-safari package deal that included eight trophies for $4,700 (not including airfare). Many North American deer and elk hunts cost significantly more.

Isn’t Africa dangerous?

While most people no longer seriously believe they’ll be in danger of being boiled and eaten by cannibals, they do worry about political instability, terrorism, and the like. It’s one of the reasons I chose Namibia for my first hunt–it’s a safe, stable, and fairly modern country. Of course, all travel involves some risk, and every country is different, so it’s important to get up-to-date information on your destination. But the bottom line is this: Good safari operators make the safety of their clients a top priority. Clients who run into problems are unlikely to return, and that’s not good for business. You’ll probably be met by someone from your safari company as soon as you step off the plane and then whisked off to the friendly confines of your hunting area.

Good safari operators are also concerned about your health. Camps tend to be clean, and most PHs are highly trained in first aid, so if you’ve chosen your safari company wisely you should be in good hands. There is a risk of malaria in many areas, but preventative drugs will keep you safe from this disease during your hunt. Most travelers to Africa secure a prescription for an antimalarial before they leave home, and begin taking it several weeks in advance of their trip. Tell your doctor where you are planning to travel, and he or she should be able to prescribe the proper drug for you. You might also need to get a vaccination or two, although none were required for my trip to Namibia. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) offer up-to-date traveler’s health advisories for most countries (cdc.gov/travel).

Of course, if you have a chronic health condition, you should check into the availability of medical care in the area you are going. Also, contact your health insurance provider to find out if your coverage applies when you are traveling abroad. If it doesn’t, you can purchase additional insurance to cover you during your trip.

Won’t I get bitten by a snake or charged by a lion?

Africa is home to a wide variety of venomous reptiles, including some of the most dangerous snakes in the world. However, most safaris are conducted during the African winter, when snakes are less active. That’s not to say that there won’t be any snakes around, but it’s extremely rare for hunters to even see a dangerous snake, much less get bitten by one.

Despite what you read, it’s also unlikely that you’ll be threatened by a big-game animal on your safari. Even hunters who are targeting these species rarely experience a charge–when they do, it is usually because a poor shot was made. Many of the areas the first-time safari hunter will visit on a plains-game hunt don’t even have lion or buffalo.

Is there anything left to hunt in Africa?

I am amazed at how many people seem to think all the animals in Africa are endangered. They’ve heard horror stories and they figure Africa is a dusty wasteland devoid of game. But in southern Africa today, thanks in a large part to game ranching and the recognition of the economic value of game and hunting, most game species–particularly the antelopes–are thriving. For an American hunter used to spotting an occasional deer or elk in a day of hunting, the variety and amount of game in Africa are impressive.

Isn’t it hard to get guns into Africa?

I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of hassle I experienced getting guns into both South Africa and Namibia (although I did experience some long waits at airports). Largely, this was the result of being well prepared.

All African countries have different regulations, and your safari operator and travel agent should be able to help you secure the proper forms and applications. Before you go, you will need to secure a signed and stamped U.S. Customs form 4457, which serves as proof of ownership of your firearms. Some countries will issue you a gun license, good for the duration of your stay, when you arrive at the airport. In other cases, you may have to fill out forms in advance so your PH can take care of the legalities for you. Be sure to ask your PH and travel agent specifically about what is required.

How do I find a reputable safari company?

This might be the most difficult question to answer, not because there aren’t any good safari companies, but because there are so many. Start your research by talking to people you know who have been there. Other good sources are North American-based booking agents who handle arrangements for African safaris; advertisements on the Web and in magazines such as Sports Afield; and places where outfitters exhibit, such as the annual conventions of Dallas Safari Club and Safari Club International and other large outdoor shows. Write or call a number of different companies for information, compare prices, ask detailed questions, and get a list of references.

What country should I hunt in?

Thirteen countries in Africa are open to big-game hunting, with more creating experimental hunting programs, but the most common destinations for first-time plains-game hunters are South Africa and Namibia. These countries have plenty of game and a large number of well-established safari operators who cater to plains-game hunters.

Do I need to buy a new rifle?

Probably not, if you’re going to be hunting only plains game. Do you have a deer rifle, especially something in the .30-caliber class? If so, and if you shoot it well, it may be the best choice for your safari rifle. The .30-06, in fact, is one of the most commonly used calibers on the continent. In many cases, even lighter rifles are acceptable. One hunter on my safari shot a dozen species–including some elk-size antelope–with his .270. It’s worth noting that this hunter was careful about his shot placement and loaded the rifle with premium bullets.

How will I get my trophies home?

Your safari company should be set up to handle the nuts and bolts of preserving your trophies and having them shipped to you after the safari is over. Again, this is something you should ask your PH when you set up the hunt. If you decide to have your trophies shipped to a taxidermist in the U.S.A., you’ll probably have to pay a fee to a taxidermist in Africa who will salt and preserve the heads and hides and crate them for shipping. When they arrive in this country, you’ll have to pay for the shipping and see that they get to your taxidermist for final preparation. You’ll probably want to hire a customs broker to help you through this process–for a fee, they’ll take care of all of the paperwork and hassles. The other option is to leave your trophies with a taxidermist in Africa and have the completed mounts shipped to you. Consult your safari operator for recommendations.

Where can I get more information about going to Africa?

An excellent basic book on this subject is Safari Guide II, which examines all facets of African hunting country by country. Other books on specific safari-planning topics include Safari Rifles II by Craig Boddington, which is the ultimate guide to choosing the right gun for your trip; and The Perfect Shot by Kevin Robertson, which tells you how to make well-placed shots on animals you may have never seen before. All of these books are available from Safari Press: 800/451-4788 or www.safaripress.com.

Leave a Comment

Is “trophy” now a lethal adjective for hunting?

I have always believed in the power of words. They have the capacity to inspire us, to lead us to powerful achievements and to great sacrifice. They can carry us to war or encourage us to peace. Weightless and without physical dimension, words remain agile weapons in our search for good and evil, and for truth. Words carry our thoughts. They transport our ideas. They give color, tone, and emphasis to our impressions. We should be careful when we use them and thoughtful when we hear them. We should remember that Adolph Hitler visited untold misery on the world through his rhetorical power. Nelson Mandela did the opposite: His rhetoric dispatched frontiers of gratuitous violence to the cradles of justice and reconciliation. So words really do matter.

None of us who care about hunting and the conservation of wildlife can any longer ignore the influence the word trophy now exerts on public attitudes and activism against hunting. The evidence is everywhere, from public opinion surveys to newspaper and television exposes, to the cackling of social media and the slightly more refined discussions in our halls of political power. Indeed, while many of us have tried to explain how the word is misinterpreted and how, in a real sense, we are all trophy hunters, seeking to acquire mementos or remembrances of our hunting experiences—whether photos, horns, antlers, or capes—it just doesn’t seem to matter. Nor does it seem to matter that many of the world’s most respected conservation organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature support legal, sustainable hunting in many parts of the world because they see the proof of its value in conserving wildlife and supporting human livelihoods.

Sadly, no matter how we try to argue the case, the public worldwide has taken a clear and likely unchangeable position that is negative to trophy hunting. Furthermore, this has now largely become a values-based debate, not a scientific one. No matter how much hunters wish that animal conservation could be the basis of the discussion, it is the behavior of the human beings involved and the very nature of the activity that are under scrutiny. This is the negative power of the word trophy. It has driven people to oppose a significant conservation mechanism.

Since the term “trophy hunting” is so universally misunderstood and disliked by the general public, Mahoney suggests hunters simply stop using it.

Lost to the public’s understanding is the idea that classic trophy hunters pursue only mature animals that have already contributed to the genetic pool of the species, animals that are of an age where death is a pressing reality and likelihood, and animals that because of their physical size and attributes will uniquely attract international hunters and thus provide badly needed income to support local human communities and wider conservation campaigns. Rather, the broad public impression of the trophy hunter is of a wealthy, white male who seeks thrills and self-aggrandizement through the wilful killing of magnificent animals and who cares nothing for wild animals, except that they exist for him to shoot. From this perspective, any benefit to conservation or humanity that may derive from trophy hunting is accidental and not an acceptable reason or rationale.

But the situation is complicated. Meat hunting, for example, is widely supported. Thus a motivational line is drawn between the word meat and the word trophy, even though the vast bulk of all meat from all hunted animals is utilized, including that from most animals harvested by so-called trophy hunters. Frustrating, isn’t it? From this vantage point we begin to see the convoluted world of words in which hunting is now immersed, and we can forecast how difficult it will be to disentangle it. It is now undeniable that communications on hunting will enter a maze of misinterpretation, confusion, and sometimes deliberate distortion that can squander much of our time, money and talent if we are not cautious in how we approach it. Many great intentions have been lost in swamps of exactly this kind. That’s why the hunting community now, more than ever, needs to choose its words carefully.

We desperately need to communicate hunting’s importance. Eliminate trophy hunting from areas such as parts of Africa, and wildlife will suffer and suffer greatly, especially the big, dangerous, and destructive species, the very ones that often plague local communities but that are the darlings of the western conservation conscience. Funny, isn’t it, that people in high-rise condominiums in Brussels or New York want lions and elephants everywhere in Africa but cannot stand so much as a mosquito, cockroach, or mouse in their own domiciles! It is marvelous what wealth and distance can afford. But people who live with wildlife will not accept human fatalities and crop destruction. In the absence of incentives, such as income from guiding hunters and the wild meat provided to them as a result, local people will kill the wildlife around them using whatever means they can.

Regardless of these facts, trophy hunting is unpalatable to a broad section of the modern public in much of Europe and North America. That is the reality we face and must address. In this context, the word modern is also relevant and problematic. Many hunters seem to think the world is the same one we grew up in or believe it can somehow be transformed back to that time, a time when our classic arguments favouring trophy hunting would be an easy sell to the public. Thus we promote the word “trophy” and believe that more statistics and better information will be our silver bullet. Once we present the public with our evidence, we assume people will see the light of day and accept trophy hunting as a reputable undertaking of benefit to both wildlife and people. Unfortunately, that assumption is not necessarily correct.

First, the world really has changed, and second, for as long as we have been conducting public attitude surveys in the North America—forty years or so—a significant majority of the public has perceived trophy hunting as unacceptable. Thus, presenting our arguments on trophy hunting’s benefits to conservation has obviously had little impact for a long time, probably because the public reaction is more against trophy hunting than for wildlife. So why do we think more of the same will work now? This longstanding opposition to trophy hunting also directly challenges the beliefs of those who see Facebook or other modern electronic communication vehicles as the fundamental cause of the public’s reaction to this activity. Even before Facebook inventor Mark Zuckerberg was born, the American public was decidedly against trophy hunting.

Is it possible hunters were part of the problem? Could it be that our messaging, our photos, our magazines, our conventions, our websites, our advertisements, our terminology, our rhetoric, our modern heroes, have all been a significant part of the problem, major influences shaping the public aversion to trophy hunting? I am afraid that simply blaming the Internet will lead us down paths of false hope and useless effort. We can analyze the reasons to death, hold town hall meetings, focus groups, and phone surveys of public attitudes, but the angst over trophy hunting is now a virus in the public conscience, reproducing itself and presenting unlimited variants to us who wish to challenge it. Like a lot of problems in life, it would be nice if the public reaction to trophy hunting could be blamed on one single cause or instrument. Unfortunately, it cannot. The reasons are many and their collective influence is interwoven and complex.

So, is the word trophy now lethal to hunting? I suspect it is, and I believe we should deal with this reality. We should consider a guerrilla tactic for the language war we are engaged in. Let us leave the landscape of the big battle to those who oppose trophy hunting. Let us quietly retire the term trophy, burn the treasured icon they seek, and leave nothing for the marauders to take.

For many in the hunting community, surrendering the term will be difficult and a sign of capitulation. In reality, we give nothing over. We hunt for the reasons we do. No one can take this from us. What the public can take, however, is hunting itself. Let us not lead them there. I see no reason to sacrifice the cultural, economic, and conservation benefits of hunting for an adjective—for as powerful as the term trophy may be for some, it is just a word, isn’t it?

Indeed, while I think of it, why not drop all the hunting adjectives such as meat, trophy, and sport, and simply call it what it is: hunting.

Leave a Comment

Five new hunting books that should be on your reading list.

In Craig Boddington’s new book, Deadly Encounters, the author flips the usual hunting narrative on its head by telling the stories of encounters with dangerous animals that don’t end well for the human. His stories of hunts and other outdoor adventures gone wrong involve lions, elephants, leopards, bears, and even bison. He discusses and dissects the incidents to examine what went wrong and how hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts can avoid becoming the hunted themselves.

The new book Africa’s Greatest Tuskers by Tony Sanchez-Arino lists every known elephant ever taken with at least one tusk of 130 pounds or more and tells the stories of who hunted these elephants, who owns the tusks, or how they were found. Three years of meticulous research went into the unearthing of these stories. The book includes dozens of elephants not listed in the record books, together with a treasure trove of photos of enormous elephants and huge tusks that have been lost or forgotten in the mists of time.

Great news for hunters who love the high country–sheep-hunting historian Robert M. Anderson has just published another magnificent mountain hunting book: Wind, Dust, and Snow II. If you are familiar with his North American sheep-hunting books, Great Rams I, II, and III, and his first book about Asian hunts, Wind, Dust, and Snow, you’ll know the kinds of fascinating stories and eye-popping photos you can expect to find in this tour de force of Asian hunting.

Safari Press recently reprinted two of the great elephant-hunting classics of the post-World War II era. These extraordinary books, Kambaku by Harry Manners and Bell of Africa by W.D.M. Bell, are autobiographical tales by two of the most adventurous hunters who ever walked the trails of the Dark Continent.

Leave a Comment

Wildlife managers try to keep wild sheep healthy by keeping them away from their domestic cousins.

Hunters who may have thought they would never have the opportunity to hunt bighorn sheep were given an incredible opportunity this year. Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks opened up hunting on a small herd of wild bighorns in southwest Montana’s Tendoy Mountains. The catch? They wanted hunters to kill all of the sheep in the herd—every single one, including rams, ewes, and lambs.

The herd has been chronically plagued with respiratory disease, and the agency decided that the only recourse was to eliminate all of the infected animals and start over. Once the chronically ill sheep have been eliminated, the department plans to bring in about fifty new, disease-free sheep to restock the area.

“Once the pneumonia bacteria get into a herd, they tend to stay there,” explained Kevin Hurley, Conservation Director of the Wild Sheep Foundation. “Even if new sheep are transplanted into the area, they’ll pick up the disease from the sheep that are already there. Montana decided to wipe the slate clean, then start over with disease-free sheep.”

As of mid-November, a little over half the sheep in the herd had been killed by hunters. “This was a great opportunity for residents and nonresidents to go sheep hunting,” said Hurley, who applauded the state for utilizing hunters as a management tool.

But will the plan work? The answer, says Hurley, depends on whether the state’s wildlife managers address the probable cause of the problem—contact between the wild sheep and domestic sheep and goats. Just as early European explorers carried diseases such as smallpox that proved deadly to populations of Native Americans who had no natural resistance to them, domestic sheep and goats carry bacteria that cause respiratory disease, especially pneumonia, in wild sheep. The wild sheep seem to have no resistance to the disease, which subsequently sweeps through a herd, often killing all or the majority of its members. Even if a few sheep survive and reproduce, the recurring disease usually kills the lambs, and the devastating cycle continues.

Because the bacteria is airborne, all it may take is for a wild sheep to exchange a curious sniff with one of its wooly cousins, and it could spell doom for every wild sheep in the region. “The science is clear,” said Hurley. “We’re aware of more than seventy scientific publications that prove adverse impacts on bighorns from respiratory bacteria carried by domestic sheep. The preponderance of evidence shows best thing to do is keep the two apart.”

The problem is not new, but it has been making headlines more in recent years. State agencies and conservation groups like the Wild Sheep Foundation have worked hard, with great success, to rebuild North America’s wild sheep populations. In the mid-1950s, it is estimated that there were fewer than 17,000 bighorn sheep in the western United States, and perhaps fewer than 25,000 overall. Today, restocking of sheep in their former range and habitat work by dedicated hunters and conservationists have boosted populations to more than 85,000 throughout North America.

But the disease issue means that there are many areas of otherwise suitable bighorn sheep habitat that will never support sheep because of the presence of domestic sheep. The situation is complex because of the long history of grazing rights on Western public lands, where the majority of wild sheep live. Many public land grazing permits have been passed down through ranching families for generations.

Nevada, for example, has the most bighorns of any state or province, according to Hurley. But only about a third of historic range is occupied. “Because the rest of the range is grazed by domestic sheep, if Nevada wants to increase its wild sheep popuations, they would have to address that,” he said.

“The disease issue is the biggest topic we deal with,” Hurley said. “The Wild Sheep Foundation is not anti-livestock in any way; we strongly support the multiple use of public lands. There is room on the landscape for both domestic sheep and wild sheep, just not in the same place.”

One strategy WSF employs is to work closely with holders of domestic grazing permits. In many cases, there are options. Cattle do not seem to pose any risk to wild sheep, and it is often possible to convince a rancher to convert from sheep to cattle on a particular grazing allotment. However, many high-mountain basins are not suitable for cattle grazing, so when possible, WSF helps ranchers locate a replacement grazing allotment if they are willing to give up a permit in an area where bighorns live. And sometimes financial incentives are offered to permit-holders to encourage them to turn their permit in. Hurley says these strategies have been successful in many instances.

“We ask the permitee what works for them, and many times they approach us and we try to work with them,” Hurley said. “This keeps people on the land.”

The problem is not limited to bighorns in the Northern Rockies; die-offs have been hitting desert bighorn populations as well. In 2013, dozens of wild sheep in California died of pneumonia, decimating one of the largest herds in the state.

Dall and Stone sheep in Alaska and northern Canada—known to scientists as “thinhorn” sheep—have not been affected since they rarely come into contact with livestock, but wildlife managers worry that these sheep are particularly vulnerable. If any of these populations were ever exposed to domestic sheep or goats, the results could be even more devastating than they are among bighorns.

“Thinhorn sheep are immunologically naïve, so to speak, so if disease got into these sheep it could run like wildfire for all we know,” said Hurley. “We don’t even want to run the risk. There are efforts in those jurisdictions to head off this problem of contact before it starts.”

These sheep do not live in areas where grazing is allowed on public lands, but that doesn’t stop a wild sheep from potentially coming into contact with sheep or goats that might live on nearby private land.

“Private land, in any sheep range, is a whole other ball of wax,” said Hurley. “In these areas we try to work with agricultural organization and reach out to people with small flocks and hobby herds; we try to educate them that there may be an issue if contact occurs.”

“It’s a complex problem,” said Hurley. “Until someone comes up with a brainiac idea to solve this, the conventional wisdom is to simply keep wild sheep and domestic sheep apart. But that’s easier said than done.”

Leave a Comment

The West’s iconic gamebird staves off an ESA listing… for now.

It was a huge victory for one of the most ambitious multi-state conservation efforts ever undertaken: In September, the US Fish & Wildlife Service decided NOT to add the greater sage grouse to the federal endangered species list. But the sage grouse is not even close to being out of the woods yet, and an ESA listing could still happen unless the work continues.

Sage grouse populations are in steep decline because the sagebrush ecosystem of the American West is disappearing fast—paved over, burned off, mined, overgrazed, and generally used and abused by an ever-expanding human population. While the grouse has taken the biggest hit, the vanishing sagebrush habitat is also affecting big-game populations, including mule deer, pronghorn, and elk.

But it was the threat of an ESA listing for sage grouse—which would have resulted in restrictions and onerous rules for miners, developers, and ranchers—that spurred a massive collaborative effort to stave off a listing. The Sage Grouse Initiative, as it is called, brought together scientists, ranchers, nonprofits, and officials from industry and government to work on a landscape-wide solution to saving sagebrush and the iconic grouse.

And by all accounts, it’s working. A report by the USDA last year showed that an impressive 4.4 million acres of sage grouse habitat has been restored since the launch of the initiative in 2010, and bird numbers have started to come up in the past couple of years. Working together to establish conservation easements, remove invasive trees, and improve grazing practices has gone a long way toward improving the outlook for the sage grouse, and the US FWS apparently agreed when it announced that an ESA listing for the bird was “not warranted.”

Federal officials seemed to recognize that this collaborative approach—a “carrot”—works better than the unpleasant “stick” of federal regulation, and fans of the initiative hope that it could represent a new paradigm for conservation efforts going forward.

“[This] decision reflects the joint efforts by countless ranchers and partners who have worked so hard to conserve wildlife habitat and preserve the Western way of life,” said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Together, we have shown that voluntary efforts joining the resources of private landowners, federal and state agencies, and partner organizations can help drive landscape-level conservation that is good for sage-grouse, ranching operations, and rural communities. Through the comprehensive initiatives on both public and private lands, the partnership has made and will continue to make monumental strides in supporting the people and wildlife that depend on the sagebrush landscape.”

The ultimate success of the effort, however, remains to be seen. Development, resource extraction, invasive plants, and wildfires all represent continuing threats to the sagebrush ecosystem in the West. Public/private partnerships need to continue their efforts to improve habitat on private land. Congressional funding will have to be made available to BLM and other federal agencies to implement conservation plans on public lands. The collaborative approach has been shown to work, but it’s crucial that none of the players drop the ball now that the immediate threat is past. It’s in everyone’s interest to conserve and restore the great sagebrush landscape of the American West and the wildlife that calls it home.

Leave a Comment

An overview of the TSA rules for flying with your hunting firearms, ammunition, and other hunting equipment

They took my Swiss Army knife. They took my mini screwdriver repair kit. They even took my tweezers once. But they haven’t taken my guns yet, and if I pay attention and follow the rules, they hopefully never will.

The Transportation Security Administration is the federal government agency created to ensure traveler safety and prevent terrorism within the public transportation system. TSA agents are best known and most visible as the screeners at airports, scanning your carry-on luggage, asking you to remove your shoes and belt, confiscating your Leatherman tool, and passing their magic wands over your spread-eagled body. Less visibly, they X-ray and hand-search your checked baggage at the airport, probing not only the contents but also the container itself for hidden pockets, false walls, and dangerous goods. This is a good thing. Most of us are willing to trade a little hassle and invasion of privacy for increased safety. Those of us who fly with firearms face a bit more hassle than the average Minnesota grandma, yet TSA regulations for hunters remain surprisingly reasonable.

According to the latest rules, legal firearms, ammunition, and firearms parts may be transported on all North American commercial airlines as checked baggage. No firearms parts may be taken aboard any flight in carry-on luggage. This includes magazines, empty brass, and bullets, but it may also include, at the discretion of individual TSA agents, scopes, a loose rear tang sight, a single trigger shoe, even the mushroomed bullet you found while skinning your elk. To be safe and avoid losing your small gun parts, pack it all carefully in your checked luggage.

The following is a summary of key regulatory requirements from the TSA Web site (tsa.gov) for transporting firearms, parts and ammunition. My comments are in parentheses.

All firearms must be declared to the carrier during the ticket counter check-in process. The firearm must be unloaded. (I like to remove the bolt or barrel, too. It reassures ticket agents, earns a modicum of their respect, and expedites the entire process.)

The firearm must be carried in a hard-sided container. (Plastic, metal, or wood. No specifics are given, but most commercially sold, lockable gun cases qualify. Of course, you’ll want a sturdy one that resists crushing, bending, twisting, and easily sprung hinges.)

The container must be locked. (It doesn’t have to be locked prior to check-in, but it’s a good idea just in case it falls into the wrong hands before you check in. You will have to unlock it for the ticketing agent, sign and date a firearms declaration card, and place said card inside the case. The ticket agent may or may not ask to see the firearm–probably not, now that TSA agents visually check them all, but that is up to each airline.)

The passenger must provide the key or combination to the screener if it is necessary to open the container, and then remain present during screening to take back possession of the key after the container is cleared. (The TSA screeners may be near the ticketing counters or downstairs in the baggage area. Your ticketing agent should direct you to them.)

Any ammunition transported must be securely packed in fiber (such as cardboard), wood, or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. (This requirement used to state “original factory packaging,” and some screeners or ticketing agents might still insist on this, but they should accept plastic ammo boxes. The main idea is to prevent free rounds from clattering together, potentially setting off a primer, remote though that possibility may be. So stick with factory packaging or any of the plastic boxes with individual sleeves or cavities for each cartridge. Shotgun shells may be stored together in classic factory boxes. I find it best to tape all boxes closed–even fresh, unopened factory shotshell boxes which easily pop open and spill their contents. Clear packing tape works well to seal all flaps and seams.)

Firearm magazines/clips and ammo pouches such as those you wear on your belt do not satisfy the packaging requirement. (Put the rounds in an approved box as above.)

The ammunition may also be located in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as it is properly packed as described above. (Individual airlines might establish more stringent requirements for ammo. Most want it packed in a different case from the firearm. Contact your airline for clarification. To be on the safe side, pack ammo in a lockable, hard-sided case and put it in your second checked bag.)

Black powder and percussion caps used with blackpowder type firearms are not permitted in carry-on or checked baggage. (Arrange to buy such supplies at the termination of your flight or have your outfitter procure them for you ahead of time.)

Bows, arrows, and broadheads or any other pointed tools must be checked. None are allowed as carry-on. (The TSA doesn’t demand a hard bow case, but common sense does. Arrows can be packed with bows. Broadheads should be secured to protect and cover sharp points and edges.)

Chemical repellants (mace, pepper spray, etc.) can be carried in checked luggage if the volume is less than four ounces and has less than a 2 percent active ingredient. (Most bear repellants exceed these limitations. You’re better off buying them in your destination city.)

Hunting knives and tools (I assume they mean various skinning tools, small shovels, pointed sharpening rods, or anything else sharp and pointed) are prohibited as carry-on luggage. These items should be packed in checked luggage. Any sharp objects packed in checked luggage should be sheathed or securely wrapped to prevent injury to baggage handlers and security screeners (who will be digging through your bags, grabbing things.)

These TSA regulations are strictly enforced. Don’t question them or argue about them. Don’t try to circumvent them. If you want your flight to go smoothly, follow them to the letter, and check the TSA Web site for updates, which are posted fairly regularly. Recently cigarette lighters, long verboten in checked bags, were also prohibited as carry-on. Book matches are still legal. Strike-anywhere matches are considered an explosive and can’t be carried anywhere, but tweezers, blunt scissors, nail clippers, nail files, corkscrews, safety razors, and eyeglass repair tools are again legal as carry-ons. Maybe common sense is making a comeback.

Leave a Comment