Sports A Field

Welcome to “The Jungle”

Taxidermist, publisher, and marketing genius, Rowland Ward turned mounted animals into a fashionable sensation during the Victorian Age.

Hunters today know the name Rowland Ward mostly because of the record book that bears his name. But Rowland Ward was a fascinating character in his own right. An expert taxidermist (though he preferred to refer to himself as a “naturalist”), Ward was also a savvy businessman and marketing genius who became the most well-known taxidermist of his day, with a shop in London called “The Jungle” that became an almost mandatory stop for any hunter traveling through London on the way to Africa or India. His publishing empire, which he started in part to help market his taxidermy business, has lasted for more than a century.

Born in 1848, James Rowland Ward grew up in London, the son of Henry Ward, a taxidermist who had done some traveling with John James Audubon. Rowland and his older brother, Edwin, followed their father into the taxidermy business, and at one point all three Wards had separate shops in London and apparently competed with each other for business, which caused no end of confusion for customers. Eventually, however, the elder Ward passed on and Edwin moved to America, leaving Rowland as the last remaining Ward in the London taxidermy business.

Ward was also a sculptor, and his attention to detail and understanding of modeling materials stood him in good stead in terms of producing realistic taxidermy. He lived in an age when taxidermy was finally making a transition from the rough, ugly “stuffed animals” of the early 1800s to a time when he, along with noted taxidermists such as Carl Akeley in Chicago, were pioneering new methods of preservation and much more realistic mounts and poses. Ward carefully observed animals at the zoo and was careful to measure specimens he received very accurately, and he introduced the used of new materials into the trade, including excelsior and phenol.

In May 1880, Ward published a book called the Sportsman’s Handbook, and in it he published his personal creed: “…but something more may be done with a prepared group of animals or a single specimen, than preservation for identification… Its value may be preserved and increased by displaying its beauty truthfully to life, while the beauty is recognized for its own sake by even the unscientific.”

Ward’s taxidermy must have been good. He was granted a Royal Warrant, and did work for King Edward VII and many members of the British royalty, famous hunters, and social climbers of the day. But he was also a savvy marketer and publicist, and he was well ahead of his time in manipulating the media, creating “press releases” that were often run word-for-word in major newspapers and magazines. He had plenty of good stories to tell that, not so coincidentally, also functioned as advertisements for his business. A lion that had attacked and killed a lion tamer was mounted by Ward in a snarling pose; Ward subsequently sent the story and photographs to the newspapers, which were all too happy to reprint the piece. He mounted the heads and hoofs of famous racehorses and even a champion cow, distributing photographs and engravings of them with the Rowland Ward name prominently displayed.

Hunting trophies, of course, were the core of Ward’s business, and had you been an American sportsman stopping over in London on your way to Africa or India in the late 1800s, you probably would have made a point to stop in at 166 Piccadilly, the shop known as “The Jungle.” The shop window always had a dramatic display; in 1876 there was a scene with a tiger hanging from the face of an Indian elephant, “illuminated at night by limelight.” Hunters and explorers such as Fred Selous, J.G. Millais, and Sir Samuel Baker frequented the shop. Teddy Roosevelt sought Ward’s advice while planning his African safari. Being generous with advice paid off handsomely; at one point Ward had sixty rhinos consigned to him from a single expedition. “The Jungle” was where expeditions to the farthest reaches of the British Empire started, and Rowland Ward Ltd. proudly called itself “Taxidermists to the World.”

The business wasn’t just limited to hunters; museums all over Europe asked Ward to create exhibits for them. In 1906, his shop prepared the first full-size African elephant for the British museum. The shop also created animal furniture, or “Wardian” furniture, including crocodile umbrella stands, a chair made out of a giraffe, and a grizzly bear “dumbwaiter” holding a tray of drinks in its paws. These items became highly fashionable in Victorian-era homes.

One thing Ward insisted on was making detailed measurements of the specimens he received, and he urged hunters to record these details as soon as possible after the kill. This helped make the mounts more realistic, and having a collection of these measurements in his shop led to the publication of his most well-known series of books.

In 1892, he published a book called Horn Measurements and Weights of the Great Game of the World. Two years later, he published a second edition, even larger than the first, and retitled it Rowland Ward’s Records of Big Game. The measurements and weights of animals that had come through his shop were listed in order from largest to smallest, although at first this was simply a reasonable way of listing them and was not meant to create competition for the largest specimens.

The book series was a sensation among hunters and naturalists. In addition to detailed weights and measurements—information that was not widely available at the time—the books included information about species, subspecies, geographical variations, and distribution of the world’s big game. Scientists, taxidermists, and natural history museums all over the world used these books for reference. It wasn’t long, however, before the human side of Records of Big Game really came into focus as it became a who’s who of the big-game hunting world. Hunters who listed their trophies in “The Book” included King George V, Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, and many other royals, dignitaries, and celebrities. The book was updated frequently—by 1914 it was already in its seventh edition—and is still published today; the twenty-ninth edition came out in 2014.

The book was another of Ward’s brilliant marketing strategies—it became so popular that every hunter wanted to have his trophies mounted by Rowland Ward. In Legends of the African Frontier, David Chandler writes, “’The Book’ Was the Baseball Encyclopedia of the safari world—every young hunter yearned to see his name under one of the headings…. No matter where you were in Africa, no matter how remote a swamp you were in or how far up the Congo you were, if you could find a hunter’s camp, you found a copy of the record book.”

The listings in record books provide an important benchmark for wildlife management, and biologists can glean important information from noting whether average trophy scores have increased or decreased over time. The Rowland Ward books provide an especially interesting historical record, since the earliest listings go all the way back to 1892.

As Rowland Ward’s current ownership puts it, its record book “… is not there to establish records in the sense of biggest or best, nor to glorify the hunter. It celebrates the animal and it does not matter whether the animal’s horns, tusks or teeth were picked up in the veld from one that had died of natural causes, was killed by a predator or was shot by a hunter. By establishing the benchmark for what constitutes a trophy (particularly where the standards are high), The Book makes a most valuable contribution to ensure that trophy hunters concentrate on those big, old, lone males which have long since passed on their genes to younger generations.

“In addition, The Book is a valuable source of knowledge on the distribution of game and its taxonomic features as well as an historical, geographical, and biological record which few other sources can match.”

During his lifetime, Rowland Ward published many other books on hunting and natural history, including works by Frederick Selous, Powell-Cotton, and Richard Lydekker, all of which served to pique the interest of the traveling sportsman and deliver more work to the company, but it was the Record Book that was certainly his greatest and most lasting achievement. After Rowland Ward’s death in 1912, the company continued to function as a taxidermy business until the 1970s. Today, Rowland Ward Ltd. is a publishing company based in South Africa and continues to publish the Records of Big Game series as well as other natural history and hunting publications, continuing the legacy of its visionary founder.

Leave a Comment

Separate Ways

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

A Win for Sage Grouse

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

The Only Way to Fly: Airplane travel with firearms and ammunition

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

Africa’s Greatest Tuskers

Africa’s Greatest Tuskers is a new book by Tony Sanchez-Arino that does what no single volume has ever attempted: It 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 author utilized information from libraries, museums, professional hunting organizations, and private collections. 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 had been lost or forgotten in the mists of time.

Some of the never-before-seen tusks featured in this book include a set weighing 174×173 pounds that is the largest ever to come out of the Central African Republic; a set of 161×155 pound tusks shot by Elsa Talayero in South Sudan, which is the largest elephant ever shot by a woman; and a set of 160-pound tusks discovered in a private collection in the United Kingdom.

Order your copy of Africa’s Greatest Tuskers from Safari Press: www.safaripress.com.

Leave a Comment

Good News from Bear Country

Feds delist Louisiana black bears and propose the same for Yellowstone grizzlies.

As spring bear seasons get underway around North America, bear populations throughout the continent are thriving. Recent news stories highlighted the recovery of a population of black bears in Louisiana and increasing numbers of grizzly bears in the Lower 48.

In March, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announced that after twenty-four years of recovery efforts by a broad array of partners, the Louisiana black bear—the inspiration for the Teddy bear—will be removed from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

The bear became part of American culture after a hunting trip to Mississippi in 1902, where President Theodore Roosevelt refused to shoot a bear that had been captured and tied to a tree by members of his hunting party. The episode was featured in a cartoon in The Washington Post, sparking the idea for a Brooklyn candy-store owner to create the “Teddy” bear.

The delisting follows a comprehensive scientific review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the bear’s status. The majority of Louisiana black bear habitat falls on private lands, where the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior worked with Louisiana farmers to voluntarily restore more than 485,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forests in priority areas for conservation.

When the Louisiana black bear was listed under the ESA in 1992 due to habitat loss, reduced quality of habitat and human-related mortality, the three known breeding subpopulations were confined to the bottomland hardwood forests of Louisiana in the Tensas and Upper and Lower Atchafalaya River basins. Today, those subpopulations have all increased in number and have stabilized to increasing growth rates. Additional breeding subpopulations are forming in Louisiana and Mississippi, providing a healthy long-term outlook for the species. Today, the Service estimates that 500 to 750 bears live across the species’ current range.

In other encouraging bear news, the Fish & Wildlife Service is also proposing to lift the threatened-species designation for Yellowstone-area grizzly population, opening the door for possible future hunting for these bears in areas surrounding the park in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The proposal caps a forty-year effort to rebuild the grizzly population in the Lower 48. Since grizzlies in the Lower 48 were added to the ESA list in 1975, the number in the Yellowstone region has increased from 136 to an estimated 1,000 today.

A final decision on the matter is due within a year. The potential delisting is likely to encounter resistance from animal-rights groups, however. An attempt was made to remove grizzlies from the threatened list in 2007, but environmental groups challenged the government in court, and protections were restored.

Leave a Comment

North America’s Wild Harvest

A study launching this year will measure the actual amounts of venison and other wild protein harvested annually in North America. Researchers will assess the nutritional, cultural, and economic values of this harvest, as well as the ecological costs of replacing this food through standard agriculture and domestic livestock production.

Dallas Safari Club is the founding sponsor of the project, pledging $200,000 over the next two years. DSC officials hope other sponsors will come aboard to help advance the study.

“This research isn’t just fascinating. It’s critical to help modern society understand the full scale of hunting on this continent, and of the natural, organic, sustainable food that today’s hunters provide for their families,” said Ben Carter, DSC executive director. “Additionally, this research will help all of us understand the hidden costs when hunting traditions are eroded—or attacked.”

Every year, some 40 million citizens in the U.S. and Canada harvest protein sustainably from forests and fields, streams, and lakes. The study will show just how much wild protein the two nations provide annually and its real value to our society.

The “Wild Harvest Initiative” will be conducted under the direction of research biologist Shane Mahoney, founder and CEO of Conservation Visions, Inc.

“The harvest and consumption of wildlife has been an integral part of the human story throughout the entirety of our existence,” Mahoney said. “Agricultural and technological progress have certainly altered our direct dependence and engagement in this process, but in many regions of the world, including the U.S. and Canada, human populations continue to rely on wild harvest for a significant part of their diet.”

Harvest research will enable better understanding of the economic effects of resource management approaches, validate policy and governance structures, and empower best practices for providing sustainable use of wild protein to as many people as possible.

The five-year initiative is scheduled to begin later this year. To learn more, visit www.conservationvisions.com.

Leave a Comment

The Taste of a Trophy

It’s a myth that only younger game animals are good eating. Trophy-size game can also be excellent table fare.

Some hunters believe trophy-size big-game animals make lousy eating, so they need to be boiled, ground into sausage, or donated. While younger animals certainly provide more consistently edible meat than older ones, my wife, Eileen Clarke, and I have enjoyably eaten plenty of trophy animals and fed them to friends who liked them a lot, too. Eileen writes game cookbooks, and her recipes help. This one is from her cookbook, Slice of the Wild, which costs $25 and is available with Eileen’s other wild game cookbooks at www.riflesandrecipes.com, or by calling 406/521-0273.

Wild Steak Fajitas
Serves 4-6
Traditionally, fajitas are a flank steak dish, but unless you have a moose or elk, there isn’t a lot of flank meat. The good news is any steak marinated 48 hours will work just as well. Also, traditionally, the sweet peppers are sautéed at the end, with onion and garlic. But I like simple, and love the taste of those tiny sweet red peppers sliced thin on top. So I leave them raw, and save a step and a pan. One other note: last time I made these fajitas, our little grocery store was out of chipotle adobe sauce. So I substituted 2 teaspoons of tomato paste (in the tube) and another tablespoon of honey for the adobe sauce, and never noticed the difference.

Ingredients

2 tablespoons apple cider vinegar
2 tablespoons oil
2 teaspoons chipotle adobe sauce
1/4 cup freshly squeezed orange juice
Juice of one lime, about 1/4 cup
1 tablespoon honey
1/2 cup sweet onion, chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon chili powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon white pepper
1 tablespoon smoked chipotle Tabasco sauce
1 1/2 to 2 pounds deer, elk, moose or antelope steak
4-6 flour tortillas (8-inch), heated on an ungreased skillet 10-15 seconds each side
Fresh salsa
A few sprigs of cilantro
Sour cream
A few slices of sweet red and yellow peppers

Preparation

Purée the vinegar, oil, adobe sauce, juices, honey, onion, garlic, cumin, chili powder, salt, white pepper and chipotle Tabasco sauce in a blender. Pour into a re-sealable plastic bag, add the meat, and seal the bag.

Marinate for 2-3 days in the refrigerator, turning the bag once each day. The longer you can marinate this, the better the flavor and tenderness.

Cooking

1. Preheat the grill to medium, about 350 to 400°F. Pour the marinade off, and lay the steaks on the grill. Cook until rare to medium rare, turning once, about 10 minutes total for 3/4-inch thick steaks.

2. Remove from the grill and slice thin across the grain. Stack on the warmed flour tortilla with fresh salsa, cilantro, sour cream, a few slices of sweet red and yellow peppers on top and enjoy.

Leave a Comment

The Good Fight

Outfitters and hunters battle poaching in one of Africa’s most famous hunting grounds.

In 2010, Buzz Charlton and Myles McCallum of Charlton McCallum Safaris were awarded the rights to hunt in the Dande Safari Area and Dande East concessions in Zimbabwe’s Zambezi Valley, two of Africa’s classic dangerous-game hunting destinations. While poaching is an issue throughout the Zambezi Valley, the duo quickly realized that the situation in Dande East was particularly bad and unless there was immediate action the area’s wildlife would be lost for good. One problem was that the community game scouts went unpaid for most of the year and had minimal resources at their disposal to strike back against organized gangs of armed poachers.

Curtailing poaching in two areas of the Zambezi Valley has allowed populations of game animals such as kudu to rebound, and has also raised the standard of living for people in the area.

The previous hunting operator hunted Dande East for elephant bulls during the early part of the season, but by the end of July the area was neglected. Once hunting operations ceased, poachers operated unchecked. Local villagers set snares and traps that killed and injured a wide variety of non-target species. Dande East had become a virtual wasteland, and it seemed it would be swallowed-up by the increasing human population and demand for resources.

Charlton and McCallum could have abandoned Dande East, relinquishing what little game remained to bands of local poachers. But they knew the area had potential: A 2009 evaluation suggested that the region had a carrying capacity of approximately 1,000 Cape buffalo, 500 kudu, and 500 sable, far above the numbers that existed in the concession. So they established the Dande Anti-Poaching Unit, or DAPU, and paid (largely out of their own pockets) salaries to community game scouts. They outfitted these scouts with uniforms, GPS and radio communications systems, and armed them in their efforts to halt poaching in the area. The game scouts responded by stepping back into the role of policing these remote areas. In addition, DAPU offered financial bonuses to game scouts who collected snares, provided information on poaching operations, arrested poachers, and so forth. These cash rewards provided even more incentive for scouts to assist in DAPU anti-poaching efforts.

The results of DAPU’s initiatives have been remarkable. Since 2010, DAPU scouts have collected more than 5,000 illegal snares and have arrested numerous poachers. These efforts have allowed native game populations to flourish, and the resurgence of wildlife has allowed for hunting operations to move back into the area. The revenue from safari hunting in Dande East has, in turn, provided jobs and produces an abundant supply of fresh meat to local villagers. Wildlife has rebounded amazingly well in Dande East, thanks in large part to the financial support generated by safari hunting.

DAPU’s efforts did not stop there. Recently, Charlton McCallum Safaris took over operations in Dande North, and they found that the poaching situation in that part of the valley was also serious, so DAPU immediately expanded their efforts into the new concession. This meant that Charlton McCallum Safaris and their DAPU scouts, in association with Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, were responsible for protecting hundreds of thousands of acres of the Zambezi Valley against illicit poaching and trapping. Augmented by additional funding by Charlton McCallum Safaris and donations from hunters, DAPU scouts waged war on poaching units that had been killing big game, particularly elephants, at a rapid rate in the area. The ivory hunters were well-armed and well-funded, but DAPU and Parks scouts managed to diminish poaching operations in Dande North, at least for now. Increased sport hunting operations in the area will likely further reduce poaching by offering employment to villagers and providing local people with a steady supply of meat.

Charlton McCallum Safaris and DAPU have made great strides toward protecting Zimbabwe’s wild game, not just by arresting poachers but by providing locals with an incentive to preserve wildlife populations for the future. Programs like DAPU have succeeded in large part because of funding from hunters. The ever-expanding human population is placing greater demands of Africa’s natural resources, and the continent’s wilderness areas are under constant threat. In many places programs like DAPU are all that stands between wildlife and poachers, and it is yet another example of how funds generated by sport hunting are having an immediate impact on conservation. As DAPU’s efforts have expanded across the Valley, the associated costs have risen as well, so it’s critical for hunters to continue to fund these programs with money generated by safaris and direct donations. For more info about DAPU visit www.cmsafaris.com.

Leave a Comment

Something to Chew On

A new study of game management areas in Zambia highlights the importance of the meat provided to local communities by hunting outfitters.

When hunters travel to Africa for a safari hunt, their friends back home often wonder what happens to the meat of the animals they kill. If you’ve been on an African safari, you know that some of the meat is eaten in camp. But most of it, especially in the poorest and most rural areas of the continent, is given to the local communities, where it is a crucial addition to the otherwise protein-deficient diet of much of the populace.

Until now, there have been few, if any, scientific studies attempting to quantify the amount of game meat that goes to local communities and the impact it has. That has changed with a just-published study of three game management areas (GMAs) in several regions of Zambia that assessed the quantity and impact of sport-hunted meat provided to the local communities between 2004 and 2011.

The study, entitled “Provisioning of Game Meat to Rural Communities as a Benefit of Sport Hunting in Zambia,” was authored by Dr. Paula A. White and Jerrold L. Belant and appeared in the online scientific journal PLOS One, published February 18, 2015. White is the Director of the Zambia Lion Project and a Senior Research Fellow at the UCLA Center for Tropical Research. Belant is an Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Management at Mississippi State University and Director of the Carnivore Ecology Laboratory. White, who conceived of the study and conducted the on-the-ground data collection, is extremely familiar with the GMAs in Zambia, having spent more than ten seasons doing carnivore research in the region.

As part of their lease agreements with the Zambia Wildlife Authority, hunting operators in Zambia are required to give to the local communities in their GMAs more than 50 percent of the meat obtained by their hunting clients. How much does that amount to? The study found that the rural communities located within each GMA where sport hunting occurred received an average of more than 13,277 pounds of fresh game meat annually from hunting operators. Extrapolating the results across all thirty GMAs in Zambia, the study estimated 286,000 pounds of fresh game meat are provided annually by the sport hunting industry to rural communities in Zambia.

Game meat drying for biltong at a hunting camp in Africa. The new study quantifies how important such meat is to people who live near safari camps.

The study authors also wanted to find out how well the outfitters were complying with their requirement to provide this meat, so they compared the amount of meat expected based on the quotas for each GMA versus the amounts that the communities actually received during a three-year segment of the study period. In seven of eight annual comparisons of these three GMAs, the amount of meat the communities received exceeded what was required. The meat donations occurred throughout the May-to-November hunting season, but the largest amount of meat was given to the communities in September and October, which is about the same time rural Zambians are most likely to run short of food since their crops are not yet ready to harvest.

The estimated annual cost to purchase the equivalent of 286,000 pounds of fresh game meat would be more than US$600,000, not including butchering and delivery costs. Using an estimate of 20 percent protein per 100 grams of game meat, the meat from the GMAs provided the equivalent of 519,084 people-days of protein per year. This figure is based on the recommended daily protein requirement of 50 grams per day.

To put this in perspective, studies show that 48 percent of Zambia’s population is classified as undernourished, and their recommended daily protein requirements are rarely met. Most Zambians actually get less than 20 percent of their dietary energy from animal protein. That’s because, to obtain protein other than the donated meat, rural Zambians, who cannot legally hunt for themselves, have three choices: raise their own livestock, fish, or buy meat. In many areas of rural Zambia inadequate grazing or the presence of tsetse flies makes raising livestock impossible. To fish legally requires purchasing a permit and having access to water, and purchasing meat is prohibitively expensive for most Zambians, who live on less than US$1 per day.

“Thus, although meat provisioned by sport hunting operators represents a small percentage of protein requirements for Zambians overall, it appears an effective means of distributing fresh, high-quality meat to some of the most remote areas of the country with the greatest protein needs, thereby partially alleviating protein deficiencies in rural Africans,” the authors concluded.

“As I began to examine the data in depth, I was surpised by the large amount of meat that was being distributed,” said White. “I was also surprised at the paucity of scientific studies that examine how hunting activities can directly support conservation. There is a wealth of colloquial information, but it rarely gets quantified or distributed in a manner that helps demonstrate the benefits that hunting can provide, in this case to rural communities in Africa.”

The paper goes on to discuss a recent, tragic development related to the original study: A hunting moratorium that was put in place during 2013 and 2014 throughout most of Zambia’s GMAs meant the game meat normally donated by the hunting industry was eliminated. This created a crisis, made worse by the fact that rural areas of Zambia are not exactly overloaded with employment opportunities. The jobs provided by hunting camps were lost during the moratorium, and the items that the hunting camps usually buy from local communities (grass for thatching, vegetables, cornmeal) were not needed. The upshot was that, in addition to losing their supply of donated meat, many rural Zambians lost the income that would have allowed them to purchase meat.

Under these circumstances, the locals can hardly be blamed for doing their own hunting. Unfortunately, the indiscriminate methods used by the local “bushmeat” hunters, such as the use of crude snares and the overharvesting of females and young animals, are unsustainable and quickly lead to the depletion of wildlife populations throughout a wide area–unlike legal safari hunting, which is carefully controlled by quotas and regulations. It’s unquestionable, the study authors said, that the severity and rate of bushmeat poaching escalated during the hunting closure. It is uncertain if any of the GMAs affected by the moratorium will be reopened to hunting this year.

“In the absence of legitimate operators, the GMAs will continue to get encroached upon by humans and livestock, and hammered by poachers as has been happening throughout the last two years,” White said. “The communities feel forgotten and are getting by however they can. It is hard to watch, but given what they have lost during the moratorium–meat, jobs, money–and the uncertainty of their future, it is hard to blame them. Right now, they are just trying to survive any way they can.”

Read the full text of the study HERE.

Leave a Comment

tablet

Never Miss An Issue!Subscribe Now: 6 Issues for $34.97

More Details
WordPress Video Lightbox Plugin