It’s the world’s most versatile big-game cartridge.
Photo above: Nobody talks a lot about .375 accuracy because the caliber is typically used for larger animals, and because recoil makes tight groups difficult. But accuracy is usually excellent, as this .375 RUM shows with several different loads.
For worldwide use on game of all sizes, it’s hard to imagine a complete rifle battery that lacks a .375. To be fair, we could lump the .375 with its European equivalent, the 9.3mm (.366-inch). There’s not enough difference in bullet diameter or weight to make serious arguments. However, in the English-speaking world, the .375 is dominant. The 9.3mm, despite its merits, is little known.
Legend has it that Holland & Holland introduced the .400/.375 Belted Nitro Express in 1905 as the answer to the 9.5x57mm Mannlicher. That’s unlikely, because the 9.5 didn’t come out until 1908. The excellent 9.3x62mm Mauser, designed by Otto Beck, also came out in 1905. It took off, and it remains the most popular 9.3mm cartridge. The .400/.375 was the world’s first belted cartridge. Underpowered, it didn’t catch on. H&H apparently believed in the .375-inch bullet. So in 1912 they tried again with the .375 H&H Magnum: same diameter, larger case. The belt was retained as a headspacing index, which was essential with the new cartridge’s tapered case and minimal shoulder.
Although the magnum suffix connotes “larger and more powerful,” it wasn’t applied strictly for sales hype. “Magnum” comes from the French term for an extra-large bottle of champagne. In the staid British gun trade, magnum was only applied to a more powerful cartridge using a bullet diameter previous to that firm. So, rival firm John Rigby’s .350 Rigby Rimless Magnum, following the .400/.350, was termed magnum. The .416 Rigby was not, because it was the first .416-caliber cartridge. Since it followed the failed .400/.375, the .375 H&H was a magnum by all definitions.
To this day, the .375 H&H is one of the world’s most versatile cartridges. It is fast enough and flat-shooting enough for use in plains and mountains, and powerful enough for the world’s largest game. Sure, it has more power than is needed for most game, but it gets the job done. I always argue that the .375 is marginal for elephant, hippo, and rhino. However, it’s on the correct side of the margin, and gets those jobs done as well. Also, it is “street-legal” for the largest game.
Current .375 factory cartridges, in ascending order of velocity: .376 Steyr, .375 Flanged, .375 H&H, .375 Ruger, .375 Wby Mag, .375 RUM, .378 Wby Mag. All are effective, but recoil goes up sharply with velocity. The .375 H&H and .375 Ruger are the most likely choices for most shooters.
Despite its versatility, the .375 is perfect for just a few species. Lion, eland, and the biggest bears come immediately to mind. I almost included buffalo, but held back. The .375 is just fine for big bovines. However, the “lower .40” cartridges are probably more ideal for Cape and water buffalo.
So, which .375-caliber cartridge should you choose? Initially, there were just two: the .375 H&H Magnum and its rimmed counterpart, the .375 Flanged Magnum. The original belted magnum loads were: 235-grain bullet at 2,800 fps; 270-grain bullet at 2,650 fps; 300-grain bullet at 2,500 fps. The rimmed or “flanged” version was downloaded slightly to reduce pressure in doubles–likely not enough for any buffalo to notice. Some new doubles are so chambered, but the .375 Flanged is mostly seen in older rifles.
The 235-grain load has gone by the wayside, and current .375 H&H loads are faster. Standard velocities today: 2,530 fps for the 300-grain load; 2,690 fps for the 270-grain load. Trajectory of the latter load is about the same as 180 grains in the .30-06. Careful handloading and/or modern loads (such as Hornady’s Superformance) can increase .375 H&H velocity by 100 fps or so. Again, no buffalo is likely to notice.
Yielding something over 4,000 ft-lbs, performance of the .375 H&H on large game remains a gold standard. That said, with increased case capacity .375 bullets can be pushed faster, flattening trajectory and increasing energy yield. The simplest way is to ream out the .375 H&H chamber, removing body taper. In the 1950s, my uncle Art Popham took all his dangerous game with a .375 Improved. Developed in 1944, Roy Weatherby’s .375 Weatherby Magnum is the most common version. The .375 Weatherby Magnum increases velocity by as much as 250 fps, increasing energy yield to more than 5,000 ft-lbs, much the same as the .416 Rigby and .416 Remington Magnum.
In 1953 Weatherby one-upped himself with the .378 Weatherby Magnum, sort of a belted version of the .416 Rigby case. Velocity is sizzling, pushing a 300-grain bullet to 2,900, a .270-grain bullet well over 3,000, with energy yield up to 6,000 ft-lbs. Remington’s .375 RUM was introduced in 2000. In case capacity, the RUM lies between the .375 and .378 Weatherby Magnums. So it’s fast and flat, developing well over 5,000 ft-lbs. The two Weatherby cartridges and the RUM are the only “fast .375” factory cartridges, but there are numerous fast and faster wildcats and proprietaries.
The .375 Ruger isn’t offered in nearly as many loads as the .375 H&H, but the few options are good. This 300-grain DGX Bonded was recovered from an Alaskan brown bear.
If a little .375 velocity is good, a lot must be better, right? To a degree. When you step up from the .375 H&H, the biggest problem is recoil. I find the .378 Weatherby Magnum one of the worst-kicking rifles on the planet, hitting you fast and hard. I haven’t hunted with it, but I’ve hunted quite a bit with both the .375 Weatherby Magnum and .375 RUM. The performance is there. It seems to me both cartridges perform on buffalo much the same as the .416s. That makes sense, because energy is similar.
This is good, but the cost is high. With added velocity, muzzle energy goes up exponentially. So does recoil. The .375 RUM and Weatherby Magnum produce up to 80 ft-lbs of recoil, about double .375 H&H recoil. I loved the raw performance of the fast .375s, but I gave up on them as too much of a good thing, especially since .375 H&H-level performance has been demonstrably adequate since 1912. The beauty of the .375 H&H is that it’s shootable. It kicks, but most people can learn to handle it. The fast .375s aren’t fun, and many people have trouble shooting them well.
Most of the .375s are suitable choices for one-rifle safaris, effective for everything from tiny antelopes on up. The African context magnifies the recoil issue. It’s one thing on a one-species American hunt; it’s another to take fast .375 RUM or Weatherby Mag to Africa and shoot it every day. After a ten-year fling across several safaris, I abandoned the fast .375s twenty years ago. If their performance were essential, I’d deal with the recoil, but in my experience, it is not.
Boddington’s first “big” Cape buffalo, taken in 1984 with a .375 H&H. Because of a bad experience on his first safari, Boddington questioned the efficacy of the .375 on buffalo for years. He was wrong: Shot placement is everything, and the .375 is plenty of gun.
The .375 H&H is not the only shootable .375. The .375 Winchester, introduced in 1978, is a potent cartridge, with performance like the old 9.5×57 Mannlicher and .400/.375. All three of these were effective short-range cartridges for medium game, lacking in power for larger stuff. All three are pretty much dead.
Recent .375 cartridges include the .376 Steyr (1999), and .375 Ruger (2007). The .376 Steyr was developed to fit Jeff Cooper’s “Super Scout Rifle” concept: Short and light, with a forward-mounted scope, yet capable of handling larger game. I’m not much on the scout rifle thing, but the .376 Steyr is a capable cartridge, shooting a 270-grain bullet up to 2,600 fps, producing 4,000 ft-lbs of energy. It has less recoil than the .375 H&H, yet still legal worldwide for the largest game. My wife, Donna, has one built by MGA on a Remington action in Cerakote and synthetic, and it’s a great rifle. Last time we were in Mozambique, she took it to the swamp and dropped a good buffalo with one shot.
The only thing about the .376 Steyr: It is not popular. Ammo is scarce, and its case is based on the 9.3×64 Brenneke, which is rare in the US. The idea was a lighter rifle for Donna, yet with less recoil than a too-light .375 H&H. MGA’s Kerry O’Day suggested building her a 9.3×62. I insisted on the .376 Steyr. We are happy with the .376 Steyr and we have plenty of ammo, but I concede he was right.
Available worldwide, the H&H is the most popular .375 cartridge. The Hornady-designed .375 Ruger is a not-so-distant second. We first saw it while filming Tracks Across Africa in 2006 and spilled the beans prematurely, resulting in an a shockingly successful release. Since then, sales have cooled but remain steady. Based on a brilliantly simple new case, the .375 Ruger uses the .532-inch rim and base diameter of a belted magnum—without the belt—thus increasing case capacity while using standard belted magnum bolt face and magazine. Case length is 2.580 inches, housed in a .30-06-length action. The H&H’s 2.85-inch case requires a full-length action.
Boddington and Steve Hornady in 2006, with the first buffalo taken with the then-new Hornady-designed .375 Ruger.
The .375 Ruger has found favor with manufacturers who don’t make .375-length actions. In platforms such as the Savage 110, Mossberg Patriot, and Ruger Hawkeye, the .375 Ruger is now the world’s most available and affordable dangerous-game rifle. I used a Mossberg Patriot in stainless and laminate on my polar bear hunt, and it was perfect for the Arctic. Just a month ago I was in a spike camp for brown bears on the Alaska Peninsula. There were two hunters, two guides, and a packer, with five rifles between us. Three were Ruger Hawkeyes in .375 Ruger, plus a Gunwerks in .375 Ruger. I was the lone holdout; I carried a .338 Winchester Magnum.
The .375 Ruger’s modern, unbelted case fits in a shorter, lighter action with shorter bolt throw than the .375 H&H. Absent body taper, despite its shorter case it offers 4 percent greater case capacity than the H&H. Add the efficiency of the shorter, fatter case, and the .375 Ruger exceeds the .375 H&H by about 150 fps, obviously delivering more energy. This is not enough of an increase to create excessive recoil, nor put it in a different power class. However, be careful with a .375 Ruger: You don’t want it in too light a rifle!
The choice today depends largely on the rifle platform you prefer. Since 2007 I’ve used both. There’s nothing the H&H will do that a .375 Ruger can’t do, and vice versa. Being a bit of a nostalgia freak, I suppose I prefer the .375 H&H. I doubt the .375 Ruger will become more popular than the H&H, nor offered in as many loadings from as many sources. But I concede that, in all the ways I can think of, the .375 Ruger is a better cartridge.
Spring bear camp in Alaska, May 2024. Left to right: Dave Dye, Pete Mayall, Austin Pierce, and Matt Balis–all four carrying .375 Ruger rifles. The .375 Ruger is not as popular as the .375 H&H, but it is more common than one might think.
A fly-in wilderness hunt in British Columbia with his father four decades ago still sparks wonderful memories.
Oh, how the years have slipped away. More than forty years have passed since that frosty morning in late September found us transferring our hunting gear and supplies from the back of Dad’s pickup to a small bush plane on a gravel landing strip in a remote area of northern British Columbia. This would be my dad’s first real wilderness hunt.
It had been a hard sell, convincing my dad to accompany me on a wilderness hunt, especially when planes were involved. He hated flying, even in big commercial jets, so when he looked at the little single-engine plane perched on its big “tundra tires,” I could see he was more than a little distressed. Thinking it was probably best not to give him too much more time to dwell on the situation, we quickly loaded our gear and stuffed him in the plane.
Our family tended to be a pretty tough crowd, where good-natured ribbing was the norm, and any chance to get a dig in was rarely squandered. Realizing that I had a rare opportunity before me, I pointed at the fabric skin of the fuselage, and poked it with my finger. My dad watched as the skin moved in and out with the pressure of my finger and I said, “Huh…it’s cloth!” At that moment the engine roared, and we were off.
About 45 minutes later we circled the drop-off point high in the Northern Rockies and the pilot set the plane down as pretty as you please on a gravel bar next to a crystal-clear mountain stream. We quickly unloaded the gear and minutes later the little plane departed. We were alone in God’s country, with nine days of hunting ahead of us.
You must remember that when this hunt took place and the plane left, you were on your own. There were no cell phones, no GPS, no satellite phones for the working class. If something went wrong you had to tough it out until the plane flew back to get you…weather permitting.
The main purpose of our hunt was to target a couple of the big bull moose that northern British Columbia is famous for, but I had also purchased sheep, mountain goat, and grizzly tags just in case an opportunity presented itself. In those days big-game draws were rare and most big-game licenses were available over the counter.
We quickly moved all our gear up into a small clearing about a dozen feet above the creek and set up camp so that we could do a bit of scouting and glass the area, and make a battle plan for the next day. Our hunt had been planned to hit the rut, and it was obvious we had timed things perfectly, as we soon located fresh rubs and several fresh rut pits within a few hundred yards of our camp.
I climbed up onto a small knoll a quarter-mile downstream and immediately noticed a small lake set back into the spruce trees a short distance away. It looked like an ideal place to hunt the next day, and my suspicions were quickly confirmed when I raised my binocular and a couple of dark spots on the lake’s shoreline turned into two cows and a decent-sized bull.
The scenery was absolutely breathtaking, and I could tell my father was suitably impressed as he took it all in. Our glassing didn’t turn up any more moose, but we did see a herd of about 30 mountain goats on slope a couple of miles upstream, and a bunch of stone sheep in a small basin directly above us. It was a heck of a good start for our first day in what appeared to be a hunter’s Shangri-La.
Back at camp we spent an hour gathering firewood to last a few days and as the light faded, we cooked a couple of steaks over the coals of the fire and got our gear ready for the next morning. Later we enjoyed a sundowner next to the fire and listened to a couple of wolves howl in the distance. Anticipating the next day could be a busy one, we hit the sack early.
The thermometer tied on my pack read 25 F the next morning, as I crawled out of the warmth of my sleeping bag. The little Coleman stove soon had the coffee perking, and we quickly downed a greasy breakfast of bacon and eggs, grabbed our rifles and day packs and headed off toward the little lake we had found the previous evening.
As we got closer to the lake, I marveled at the moose trails that were two feet deep in places, and all of the fresh sign indicated that the area had to be absolutely filthy with moose. So, not unexpectedly, when we were a few hundred yards from the lake I could see a couple of moose on the shoreline ahead, so we stopped and carefully glassed the area. A couple of moose soon turned into eight moose, including three bulls, a decent bull with a spread in the high 40s, and two young satellite bulls whose rutting enthusiasm made up for what they lacked in the antler department.
As it was our first morning and it was obvious there were a lot of moose In the area, we backed quietly out of the area and spent the rest of the day exploring and glassing. Toward the end of the day, we spotted a big bull about half a mile in the other direction from camp. It was too late in the afternoon to try and get closer, so we called it a day and headed back to camp.
The next morning, we decided to split up as my dad wanted to try and get a better look at the bull we had spotted the previous afternoon, and I would make my way back down to the little lake. We would meet back at camp after the morning hunt and make a plan, which would hopefully involve quartering a bull.
Now familiar with the route, it didn’t take long for me to sneak back to the lake. Once again, there were a few moose puddling around at the edge of the lake, including several cows and calves, and the two young bulls we had seen previously. I did not see the bigger bull, but I could hear the odd twig break and saw flashes of movement back in the spruce trees. I waited for a bit to see if the other moose would move out to where I could get a glimpse of them, but nothing happened, so I decided to call and see if that got any reaction. I let go with a couple of grunts and instantly had a bull reply and could hear it moving in my direction. I saw the flash of a palm and figured it was probably the bigger bull from the previous morning, but out came a different bull, a bigger bull.
This bull had nice wide palms, lots of points, and was definitely over 50 inches, so I wasted no time in sending a Partition on the way. The Nosler did its job, punching through both lungs and, in true moose fashion, the bull thought about things for a few moments and then did a slow-motion pirouette and toppled to the ground.
After gutting the bull, I made my way back to camp and found my dad was already there and had made some lunch. He had seen the bull he was looking for and decided he would take it, given the opportunity, as it was an older bull with antlers that carried a lot of mass. Unfortunately, the bull was way up the side of the mountain and would be too difficult to pack out, so when he heard me shoot, he decided to head back to camp.
We spent the rest of the day quartering my bull and getting the quarters out and hung in some trees near the creek. In the evening, we decided to try calling the bull my dad was after. Perhaps we could convince it to move closer to the creek, where packing the big ungulate out would be less onerous.
The following morning was crisp and clear, and felt very moosey. As luck would have it, not two hundred yards from camp stood a nice big bull on the gravel bar the plane had landed on. It was a nice big bull with heavy antlers and my dad was pretty certain it was the same bull he had been focusing on. Moments later the big bull was down, and our moose hunting was officially over.
The author’s father with the antlers of his old bull. His moose was later aged at fourteen years.
We spent most of the next day cleaning up the quarters of our two bulls and bagging them with cheesecloth. In the late afternoon we did a bit of fishing and caught a couple of nice trout for dinner. After doing the dishes we made ourselves a drink and sat around glassing. I looked at the ridge right above camp and was just in time to count seven Stone rams as they walked over the top and into the basin behind. I knew exactly what I would be doing in the morning.
We left camp at first light, and after about three hours of steady climbing we made it to the ridge above camp. Using some big rocks as cover, I peeked into the basin and could see the rams were bedded down in the shale on the far side. With my spotting scope I could tell that two of the rams were legal full curls and decided to go for it.
My dad decided he was not up to any more climbing and said he would stay behind while I attempted the stalk. Not wanting him to overdo it, I said that was absolutely okay, as sheep were small, and I could easily handle the pack out with the horns and meat if I got lucky.
The stalk was pretty much textbook. I dropped down below the ridgeline and then circled around the backside of the basin, checking periodically to make sure the rams had not decided to move and to keep track of where I was. I pinpointed a specific bump on the ridge that appeared to be above where the rams were bedded and when I figured I was in the right spot I slowly inched up and peered over the edge.
The rams were still there, bedded down and looking off across the basin. I figured they were about 250 yards away, but I would have to wait until they stood up before shooting. The two legal rams were about the same size, but the one ram had the classic Stone sheep coloring with a light-colored head and upper neck, with dark shoulders. That was the ram I wanted, so I settled in with a good rest and waited for the ram to get up.
I only had to wait about fifteen minutes before the rams started to fidget and they began to get up. When my ram stood, I was ready, and when the .300 Weatherby barked he dropped and slid a few feet in the shale and stopped. His companions paused for a few seconds and then trotted off around the basin and disappeared over the far ridge.
I had my first sheep. Dad couldn’t complete the stalk with me, but when I got back to him with a pack full of meat and the lovely amber-colored horns, I found out that he had been able to watch the whole thing go down through his binocular.
The author with his Stone ram, taken at the end of the hunt.
I spent the next day skinning, fleshing, and salting the cape of my ram and that evening we had an extremely memorable meal of sheep ribs cooked over the coals of our fire. It was an outstanding meal and one that neither of us would ever forget.
As luck would have it, the pilot dropped in the next day to check on us and see how we were getting along. Sadly, the pilot said that there was a chance the weather was going to change, with rain and flurries a possibility. Since a couple of extra flights were needed to get us and all of the moose meat out, the prudent course of action would be to do the flying while the weather was still decent.
It was a fantastic hunt, but at the time I certainly had no way of knowing that some forty-plus years later I would be looking back and considering it to be my greatest hunt. Getting a Stone ram on my own certainly rates right up there as one of my best hunts, and my dad and I both taking a big bull moose on the hunt would have been a fantastic hunt in and of itself.
As the years have gone by and life’s unexpected challenges and curve balls have occurred for both of us, as they do for everyone, my perception of that hunt we shared together has changed. The experience also taught me that you should never put things off to do in the future, because you simply do not know what the future holds.
My father passed away two years ago. After that great hunt we shared, he never again went on another true wilderness hunt, and it was really the last time that we got to share that sort of experience together, just the two of us. Time restraints due to career paths, and later, health issues that both of my parents had to deal with, combined in such a way that they prevented any further opportunities for us to experience another hunt together, let alone another hunt of that magnitude.
I have been on lots of great hunts, and I hope I have a few more ahead of me. But for now, at least, I must rate that hunt with my father all those years ago as my greatest hunt.
The Outdoor Stewards of Conservation Foundation is working to improve public perceptions of hunting and shooting.
Image above:The “Fill a Bag while Filling your Tag” initiative encourages hunters to pick up any trash they find in the field as a way to bolster our image as responsible stewards of the outdoors.
Hunters, anglers, trappers, and recreational shooters are the backbone of conservation in North America. We know this, but most of the rest of the world does not. And that may be part of the reason that the public’s attitude toward what we do is trending more toward disapproval all the time.
“Hunters and shooters are good at a lot of things, but we are not good at communicating what we do,” said Jim Curcuruto, Executive Director of the Outdoor Stewards of Conservation Foundation (OSCF).
The decline in cultural acceptance of hunting and shooting is a huge potential problem for the future of our outdoor traditions, and that’s the reason Curcuruto launched OSCF, a 501c3 nonprofit organization. Its mission is to work with all facets of the outdoor industry to improve the public’s perception of traditional outdoor pursuits using research-based communications and engagement programs.
Curcuruto’s decade-plus stint leading research, market development, and recruitment efforts for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) gave him a close-up look at the problem and spurred him to start OSCF in 2021. While the majority of non-hunters are still not overtly opposed to hunting, a survey in 2023 conducted by OSCF and Responsive Management showed an alarming 4 percent decline in the general public’s approval of these activities.
OSCF is working to buck this trend by publicizing and celebrating all the good things done by hunters, anglers, trappers, and shooters, which it refers to with the shorthand HATS. “It was definitely time for an organization dedicated to promoting everything that we do,” he said.
OSCF has several major initiatives. First and foremost is “Connecting with Conservation,” a communication program formed with a wide range of industry and agency partners to spread the word about how conservation is funded in America. Through a series of professionally produced videos and social media postings that can be used and shared, OSCF explains how HATS fund conservation through excise taxes and license fees.
Further, through its newly formed Outdoor Industry Communication Council (OICC), OSCF is working to amplify these communications efforts through coordinated partnerships with outdoor gear manufacturers, state fish and wildlife agencies, and conservation groups. Curcuruto points out that all these entities share the common goal of increasing participation in hunting and angling, but they rarely work together. The need for coordinated messaging was recently recognized by the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies and the US Fish & Wildlife service, which awarded a multistate conservation grant to OSCF to develop an integrated communications strategy to educate the masses on conservation topics.
Through this, OICC has made available a series of free articles written by professional outdoor writers that they are encouraging their partners to reprint and share on websites, social channels, e-newsletters, podcasts, and printed publications.
Articles available for immediate distribution include an overview of the outdoor industry’s $80 billion economic impact, details of the 400,000 American jobs that are created or sustained by the outdoor industry, and how a single hunter’s seasonal purchases help fund wildlife management. Additional features profile a production-line manager at a firearms manufacturer, how to get started in recreational shooting, and how to recruit the next generation of hunters and target shooters.
OSCF is also currently developing public service announcements that explain how conservation is funded. These 60-second and 30-second TV spots will be provided to 11,000 TV stations in a pilot project this year.
A second OSCF initiative, “Fill a Bag while Filling your Tag,” focuses on the unsung ways that HATS are stewards of nature. “So many hunters and anglers pick up trash when they’re out in the woods,” Curcuruto said. “In fact, 80 percent of HATS say they clean up nature on a regular basis, versus 60 percent of general outdoor users.”
OSCF works with its industry and agency partners to distribute reusable, biodegradable bags all over the country, encouraging people to take the bags with them while out hunting, fishing, trapping, or target shooting and use them to take out any trash they find while outdoors. Bags are preprinted with messages that ask HATS to post photos or short videos of themselves with their bag and trash to their social media accounts to show others who the true stewards of conservation are. (Posters should include the hashtag #TrophyTrash to be tracked on social media sites such as Instagram.) It’s another way to bolster our image as responsible, caring stewards of the outdoors.
The third initiative, which OSCF calls, “Come With!” is a challenge to all of us to invite someone new to come along with them to the range, field, or lake. Millions of dollars have been spent by agencies and organizations over the past decade trying to figure out how to recruit new hunters and anglers to our ranks, but Curcuruto says it all boils down to a very simple concept.
“The number-one way to recruit new people is not through a youth program—it’s to have somebody who is experienced in outdoor pursuits invite someone who isn’t experienced,” said Curcuruto. “Some 25 million Americans say they have an interest in these pursuits—they are just waiting for someone to invite them.”
To learn more about OSCF’s work, or to donate and receive a “Trophy Trash” bag, see outdoorstewards.org.—Diana Rupp
Black bear hunting is available, affordable, and typically successful. But bears are tough to judge!
Photo above: This bear has all the hallmarks of a big boy: The head appears small, legs seem short, body is ponderous, ears seem wide apart on the skull.
For many hunters, spring is about turkeys. And as I wrote last month, for European hunters, spring is about roebuck. For me, though, spring is about bear hunting. Primarily black bear hunting, because the hunts are widely available, affordable, and highly successful. Early in spring, only the big boars are out of their dens. Now, in June, they’re all out. This time of year, we have to be careful to watch for sows with cubs, which may be hidden back in the brush a bit. But the advantage of hunting in June is that the boars are getting amorous.
This is the first spring in several that I haven’t gone black bear hunting. I’m missing it, but don’t feel sorry for me; I’m in Alaska looking for a big brown bear. Honestly, I have no great reason or excuse to take another bear of any kind. But I like bear hunting; it is interesting and exciting. I expect this to be my last hunt for a brown bear, but I’ll do more black bear hunting. What’s not to like about a hunt that is so available, affordable, and typically successful?
Everybody wants a big bear, of course. And everybody wants a beautiful bear. June is a great time to hunt, but the older boars have been out for a while. Especially if the weather is warm, some hides are rubbed. This is not always easy to see, especially in poor light; you just have to look as close as you can. If the fur looks patchy and thin, it may be a giant bear, but it may make a poor rug.
Personally, I like black bears that are black. Maybe this is because I’ve shot brown and cinnamon-colored black bears. Maybe it’s because I’ve shot brown/grizzly bears that are anything except black. I don’t know; to each his/her own. The various color phases of black bears are exceptionally beautiful, and many bear hunters are crazy for them. However, you can hunt black bears for size or color, but it’s difficult to do both with equal results.
A good black bear from Vancouver Island. Although color-phase bears are fairly common on BC’s mainland, they are extremely unusual on the island.
In a perfect world, I like two-bear areas. With black bears, unlike most North American big game, there are lots of multiple-bear areas, including parts of Alaska, several Canadian provinces, and northern Idaho. I’ve been skunked many times on hunts when I would have been delighted with one chance at one bear. But let’s enjoy our perfect world: For many, a perfect black bear hunt would be to take one big black bear, plus a pretty, color-phase bear.
I shot my first black bear in Montana in the spring of 1973; it happened to be a beautiful, brown-colored bear. Since then, I’ve taken two bears in two-bear areas, one bear in one-bear areas, one bear in two-bear areas, and no bears at all in both one and two-bear areas. All multiple times. I don’t go every spring, but I like black bear hunting. But in fifty years of black bear hunting, exactly once have I taken a black-colored black bear and a color-phase black bear on the same hunt. That was with Trapper Don McRae in northern Manitoba, some forty years ago.
My young Kansas friend Michael Persinger, cousin to my neighbor and whitetail partner Chuck Herbel, was recently headed to Alberta on his first black bear hunt and first-ever guided hunt. He was apprehensive; nervous about hunting with a guide, nervous about bears. Understand, Kansans don’t live with bears; all we know about bears is the scary horse-pucky. Well, he had his Dad’s Remington M700 .30-06, won in a raffle in 1985. His Dad wasn’t a hunter, so it was still a new gun, broken in on Michael’s first Kansas buck. The .30-06 is not a big gun, but it’s plenty for any black bear that walks, especially when hunting over bait, where shots will be close.
So he was well-armed, and headed to a good two-bear area, hunting with Red Willow Outfitters in central Alberta. He told his guide, Taylor, “I really hope to get a color-phase bear and a big black bear.” Well, who doesn’t? The outfit must know what they’re doing, because Michael’s black bear measured 7 feet 4 inches, an awesome bear with a big skull.
In May 2024, Michael Persinger hit the jackpot on a hunt in central Alberta with this huge black bear… but it was a two-bear area, and he wasn’t done hunting.
Then he took a beautiful, red-colored bear, not a small one. He might do a lot of black bear hunts in a lot of places and not do that again.
Michael Persinger with his exceptional cinnamon-phase bear, taken on the same hunt as the big black bear pictured above. On one hunt, this doesn’t happen often!
Big black bears are difficult. They exist wherever black bears occur (which is now almost continent-wide) but the biggest problem is to judge them. Even after fifty years, knowing full well what a big bear looks like, I still make mistakes. We’ll come back to that. Color phases are perhaps even more difficult than big bears.
Black bears occur in a wide color spectrum. Brown, blond, tan, red, and cinnamon bears probably occur almost anywhere black bears exist. The white (also called Kermode or “spirit”) black bear is mostly confined to the Queen Charlotte Islands. The “glacier,” or blue-gray, color phase occurs rarely in the Yakutat area of southeast Alaska, and is almost unknown elsewhere.
The tan-red-brown phases are common in some areas, rare in others. Central Alberta, where Red Willow operates, has a high percentage of color-phase bears. Color-phase bears are plentiful in much of the Rocky Mountain West, on up into central Canada. But, glacier bears aside, color-phase black bears are rare in Alaska. They are not uncommon in British Columbia, but scarce on Vancouver Island. It’s spotty. Because I prefer black-colored black bears, I don’t know enough to suggest where color phases are common, or where they are unicorns. I do know the odds are better in some places than others.
In 2022 and 2023, I hunted in extreme northern Alberta, right on the NWT line, with Wally and Louisa Mack’s WL Guide Service. The hunt used a similar methodology to what Michael described: Bait barrels to judge size, stands set close to baits for dual archery/rifle use. Both years I hunted there, most hunters took two bears. I took two nice bears both years. I was part of a group, other parties overlapping, so in twenty days in Wally’s camp I saw thirty bears come into the skinning shed. Every single one was coal black! So that’s not the place to look for a color phase, although they take them occasionally and have seen them on trail cameras.
The other thing about color-phase bears that must be understood: They are usually not the biggest bears. There are exceptions, but there is radio-collar evidence that color-phase bears sometimes turn darker (black) at full maturity. Now, the North American black bear population runs into the low millions. Hunting pressure is generally light, and the bears are a major nuisance in some areas. So there are sound management reasons why seasons are long with multiple-bear options; and why, typically, any bear without a cub is legal game. Don’t second-guess it to death, just accept that color-phase bears are beautiful, but usually, they’re not huge.
It’s okay if you get carried away by the color, and there may even be an optical illusion at play: Light-colored bears look bigger. But all bears are difficult to judge. If you see a bear on a hillside, and then you see a basketball-sized black object beside her, that’s easy: it’s a sow with cub, so quit looking. See any lone bear on a hillside, though, and it’s tough. Sure, there are signs: Ears seeming wide apart on the skull, short legs compared to the body, small head compared to the body, ponderous gait, broad chest. All of that, and it’s still easy to get fooled.
Spot-and-stalk is one of the most enjoyable ways to hunt black bears, but probably the worst for properly judging a bear. On a distant hillside, they all look big at first, and are easy to misjudge.
The two most selective methods for hunting black bear are over bait, and with dogs. The former works because the bait barrel is the yardstick, or because actual yardsticks have been set near the bait. The latter works because the encounter is too close for error, and because the track has been seen before the dogs are released.
Otherwise, judging bears is an imprecise science. Guides and outfitters who take more bears in a season than most will in a lifetime have an edge; we amateurs cannot compete. However, judging a lone bear on a hillside is always fraught with risk. Absent a cub, it will be legal to take, but often it is not the bear you think it is. Even after fifty years of hunting black bears, I can say this: they all look big when you first see them.
If you’re looking for a good pair of boots for safari, take a look at what the professional hunters wear.
I had been searching for a pair of really good safari hunting boots for the last few years, but hadn’t found anything that impressed me. On my last Mozambique safari, my guide, Rye Pletts, was wearing exactly the type of boot I’d looking for and when I asked him the brand, he told me they were Jim Green boots. Later that evening, I noticed that almost all the PHs in camp were wearing Jim Greens, and everyone seemed pleased with them. Since guys who made their living hunting big game in remote areas had nothing but praise for these boots, I knew I needed to take a closer look at them.
Mark Haldane of Zambeze Delta Safaris put me in touch with Gareth Crouch, a third-generation shoe and boot maker from Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, and the managing director of his family’s Jim Green Footwear company. Prior to working in the boot-making industry, Crouch served as a game ranger and safari guide in Kruger National Park, so he had firsthand knowledge of how hunting boots should be made.
In 1987, Gareth’s father and grandfather left the shoe factory where they worked and formed their own company, Crouch Footwear. Gareth’s father, Peter, and his business partner then founded a separate boot company in 1992 and called it Jim Green, after the frogs of the same name that are found along rivers in the Midlands Meander of KwaZulu Natal. Originally, Jim Green boots were built for farmers who needed a sturdy leather shoe that could last for years. Later, the company’s Razorback boots became the favorite footwear of miners and contract workers across southern Africa.
In 2013, Gareth joined the company. He developed a social media platform to help spread the word about the company’s boots, but soon he realized that the brand needed to be available to more customers.
“I approached my father about selling our boots on Amazon, and he told me that was a crazy idea,” Gareth said. “I did more research and went back to him after a month, but he still said no. After the third attempt, I decided I was going to go ahead and sell on Amazon anyway.”
Gareth purchased thirty to fifty Jim Green boots at a time with his own money and began selling them on Amazon. Eventually, he saved enough money to purchase 2,000 pairs of boots and shipped them in a container to the United States. Jim Green boots began to develop an international following, particularly among hunters.
Gareth designed the company’s popular African Ranger boot and wore them for six months, making improvements to the design as needed. Once the African Ranger design was finalized, Gareth shipped sixty pairs of boots to rangers in Zimbabwe’s Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe for a year-long trial. At the end of the test period, the rangers were so impressed they purchased 150 pairs. Gareth agreed to match their initial purchase, shipping an additional 150 pairs at no cost.
“If shoe companies pay athletes to support their brand, we wanted to support rangers who often work behind the scenes,” Gareth said. Today, Jim Green continues supporting rangers by donating one free pair of Ranger boots to a game ranger for every ten pairs sold. To date, Jim Green has supplied more than 2,000 African game rangers with boots.
Jim Green boots feature attractive styling that make them suitable for everyday wear, but they are also rugged, high-quality boots with ample ankle support and a comfortable fit.The wedge-style rubber sole allows hunters to stalk quietly through the bush, even over dry leaves.
When Gareth sent me a pair of Ranger boots, I was immediately impressed. These boots support the foot and offer protection against thorns and rocks, yet they are more comfortable than most hiking shoes. Perhaps most important, the wedge-style rubber sole allows hunters to stalk quietly through the brush, even over dry leaves. They’re lighter than many competing boots, and the insole is stitched to the upper using double-stitched 2.2mm braided nylon cord. To further enhance durability, there’s a steel shank between the insole board and the sole, and heel and toe stiffeners offer additional support. The toe, heel, and eyelet areas feature a double layer of 2.2mm full-grain leather, and the hooks and eyelets are very heavy duty to stand up to years of hard use.
I haven’t spent a full year in these boots like the Gonarezhou Rangers did, but my initial tests have been very impressive. These boots are extremely comfortable with ample support and a secure fit, and they’re the quietest stalking boots I’ve ever tested. Even after hiking several miles, there was no soreness or blistering, and they are suitable for rough, rocky terrain. Superior materials and excellent build quality ensure that these boots will last, and the attractive styling (complete with green laces and a signature Jim Green frog wearing a top hat and boots and holding a rifle and flag) make them suitable for everyday wear.
After years of searching, I’ve finally found my go-to safari boots, and it’s good to know that the brand is reinvesting in conservation of African wildlife by supporting game rangers. In fact, I like these boots so much that I’ve just purchased a second pair. African Ranger boots are available in black, brown, and fudge colors and carry an MSRP of $169. There’s also a Cape buffalo skin version ($220) as well as an 8-inch version known as the AR8 that offers additional support ($209). For more information, visit JimGreenFootwear.com
A challenging and rewarding hunt in one of the most remote places on Earth.
The headwaters of the Colville River begin along the northern edge of Alaska’s Brooks Range, and from there the river runs north and east for about 350 miles before it spills into the Arctic Ocean west of Prudhoe Bay. Along its course the Colville, located entirely above the Arctic Circle, doesn’t pass anything resembling a town. When the river flows (it’s covered in ice for more than half the year), it passes through hundreds of miles of empty, treeless tundra. Researchers have named the confluence of the Colville and its tributary, the Etivluk River, the most remote place in all of North America.
After ten hours riding upstream in a Zodiac loaded with caribou-hunting gear, I had no trouble believing this was indeed the most far-flung destination on the continent. Neal Emery, who worked for Hornady at the time, rode in the bow of the boat while I was draped across guns and equipment amidships and our nineteen-year-old guide, Geordy, manned the steering column from the stern. The din of the outboard motors made talking impossible, so I spent long hours searching the hillsides for mammoth tusks, which sometimes become exposed on cliffs along the river.
The Colville–a river where it’s more common to see a woolly mammoth’s tusk than another boat. The term “remote” doesn’t accurately describe the area, a place where hunters watch as columns of storm clouds build up fifty miles away, with nowhere to escape and without a single tree under which to shelter. The storms march across the barren moonscape and dump cascading sheets of water on the huddled visitor before continuing toward the Brooks Range and the Alaskan interior. In the Arctic there’s no place to hide from the elements.
What draws hunters this deep into the tundra is the annual caribou migration. Beginning in August the Western Arctic caribou herd, which has spent the long summer days farther north around Prudhoe Bay, begins a southward migration toward the Brooks Range. If you’re in the proper place at the proper time you may see thousands of caribou in a single twenty-four-hour stretch, and there are accounts of unbroken herds passing by camps around the clock for days on end.
By the time we reached our camp thirteen hours upriver, though, we had not bumped any big herds. In fact, we’d only seen a few caribou and a single wolverine rooting along the riverbank. Eventually we reached a gravel bar where three tents shuddered against the north wind.
Camp on a gravel bar in the Colville River country of northern Alaska.
Striker Overly’s caribou camp is situated on a gravel bar that’s just long enough for him to land his Piper Cub, and despite its remoteness the camp was well-outfitted. We were exhausted after the long ride, but in late August the light hung around until after midnight. I fell asleep on my cot to the sound of water rushing over the rocks in the braided river outside.
I was sharing my tent with fellow outdoor writer Tom Beckstrand. By the time I awoke Tom was gone, and I could hear boots crunching on smooth river stones and voices from the mess tent. The long boat ride and uninterrupted daylight had disabled my internal clock and I wasn’t sure if I’d slept an hour or ten, so I was relieved to learn that it was morning.
There are two ways to hunt this section of the Arctic. The first and less fruitful method is to set out on foot, using the tops of the high rolling hills to glass for game across the tundra, but the vastness of the region (it might be two miles between glassing points) makes this grueling and generally unproductive. The second method is to run the boats along the Colville and its tributaries, find a patch of high ground, and glass for game. By boating from one glassing location to the next, it’s easy to cover larger tracts of land, and over each hill there might be a herd of a thousand caribou.
We didn’t find a herd of a thousand animals, but I did spot a single bull topping a hill on the horizon. Shawn Skipper from Leupold centered his spotting scope on the caribou, which was standing halfway up a slope and grazing on low-growing mosses and lichens.
“He looks pretty big, but he’s 1,800 yards away,” Shawn said. He tilted his head down, studied the caribou, then looked at me.
I didn’t bother to ask Geordy what he thought. An Alaskan hunting guide in his late teens, Geordy could cover the distance so quickly the mosquitoes would struggle to keep pace. It was up to me. I looked through Shawn’s spotting scope, examining the velvet on the antlers crowing the bull’s head. The velvet looked strangely silver instead of the usual deep green, but the bull was big. He was relatively close by—at least by Arctic standards. The next caribou bull might still be hundreds of miles away toward Prudhoe Bay.
“Let’s try it,” I said to Geordy. Shawn nodded in approval.
We used the raft to cross the tributary river and then began our stalk. The mosquitoes had no issue keeping pace with me, and a curtain of buzzing insects whined around my eyes and ears while I hiked. The first hundred yards after the river crossing were covered by smooth gravel with tufts of moss and lichens, so walking was easy. However, the next swale was a swampy series of tussocks—also commonly called muskeg–that continued for another quarter mile.
If you’ve never crossed tussocks, I’ll pass along the first and only advice I was given on the subject: don’t step on top of them, and don’t step beside them. If you’ve reasoned that leaves nowhere else to place your booted foot, you’ve learned the first, last, and only lesson for getting across muskeg—there’s no stable or fast or efficient way to cross the stuff. It’s a slog, one foot ahead of another, tripping and sinking the entire time.
I tried to embrace the challenge. I moved as quickly as possible, which wasn’t very fast at all, and soon I’d sweated through my clothes. I removed the waterproof outer layer and cold air chilled my damp shirt and pants. Too late, I was soaked through. We kept on, first over one ridge and then through another wide tussock tundra and then to a second larger hill. By my calculations, when we crested that hill, the bull would be within rifle range.
Carefully we edged up to the crest, but the bull was gone. That meant another plod across a tussock field. By the time we reached the top of the next hill, we’d finally caught up with the bull. He stood alone halfway up the next ridge, moving slowly from left to right.
I laid down and rested my Savage .280 Ackley Improved on Geordy’s pack. The regiment of mosquitoes were still swarming my face, buzzing in and out of my ears and settling on my eyelids, but I managed to pull the rangefinder from my pocket and range the bull: 301 yards. Since the rifle was zeroed at 200, I held high on his shoulder and squeezed the trigger. When I settled out of recoil, the bull was down.
The author with his nice caribou, taken after a challenging stalk across more than a mile of muskeg.
We reached him ten minutes later. His antlers were tall, though they lacked a deep curl, and the velvet did indeed have a distinct silver color that may have been age-related or simply a genetic abnormality. We began the chore of skinning and butchering the bull with Geordy handling the bulk of the work. He cut away every piece of meat, including everything between the ribs, and we filled our packs for the hike out.
We cut at an angle toward the river which reduced the length of the walk to about a mile, but it was the hardest mile I’ve covered. The tussocks were even more troublesome under the weight of the caribou meat, but we had dedicated ourselves to carrying the entire load out in a single trip. I tried to keep pace with Geordy, but eventually had to tell him to go on ahead. It seemed with every step the uneven ground shifted under my boots and I had to readjust, balancing the load on my back so I didn’t topple over. Mosquitoes had reached plague numbers by that stage. Neal and Shawn sat by the river, watching the whole sad spectacle unfold.
When I got to the river and unloaded the last of the meat and antlers into the boat, I was soaked through once again. Some was sweat, some blood, but I knew I had to do my best to wash myself clean before we reached camp an hour away. We slipped into the raft and made our way into the main channel of the river and upstream. At some point I fell asleep on a warm game bag, and when we reached our camp on the gravel bar I smiled as the others congratulated me. They asked what had happened and I gave them the abridged version. I’d finish in the morning, I told them, after breakfast.
I realize my greatest hunt was also one of my most difficult, and perhaps that’s not a coincidence. There were challenging times on the trip, but there was also time to fish, to graze on the seemingly endless blueberries, and to watch storms rush across the empty landscape, exceptional experiences that combined to make that adventure my favorite.
I also had a great team. Despite the difficulties inherent to wilderness hunting Neal, Tom, and Shawn made the experience enjoyable. Had anyone decided to focus solely on the tough parts or complain, it could have been a miserable experience indeed. Instead, we tried to embrace the challenge, the work, and the isolation. We also appreciated—and often discussed—how fortunate we were to experience this place. The Colville country is true wilderness that looks very much as it did when the last mammoth died here 4,000 years ago, and to spend time anywhere that makes you reflect on your own relative fragility and insignificance is worthwhile. It’s the element of hunting that those who condemn the sport can never fully respect or appreciate, but I believe it’s the quiet call that draws us to wild places, not strictly the desire to fill a tag.
In The Green Hills of Africa, Hemingway wrote, “It is pleasant to hunt something that you want very much over a long period of time, being outwitted, out-maneuvered and failing at the end of each day, but having the hunt and knowing every time you are out that, sooner or later, your luck will change . . .” You don’t hunt the Arctic because it’s comfortable, or convenient, or because the hunting is easy. You do it for the challenge, and the challenge is as essential to the experience as the trophy itself.
Field-testing the newest hunting pack from ALPS Outdoorz.
Whether you’re packing gear for a backcountry hunting trip, hauling a tree stand into the deer woods, or packing elk quarters back your truck, the new Elite Series ultralight hunting pack system from ALPS OutdoorZ can do it all.
For years, ALPS OutdoorZ has been manufacturing a popular meat-hauler frame and pack system called the Commander X. In 2022, the company took that proven design and made it 30 percent lighter, 30 percent stronger, and much more versatile, with additional modular features that let the user customize the pack system to any use.
The heart of the system is the Elite Frame, which is made of a high-performance thermoplastic composite and weighs 3 lbs. 10 oz. Designed for adjustability and comfort, it features a cushioned, contoured pad in the lumbar region with a nonslip pad in the center and breathable mesh covering the pad and straps. You can adjust the frame for a wide range of torso lengths by removing the straps and positioning them up and down from an XS position to an XXL position. The frame’s meat shelf has numerous adjustments to accommodate quarters from antelope to elk and has plenty of lashings to secure the load. Load lifters and anti-sway waist belt straps keep everything stable on the hike out.
The removable waist belt on the frame is exceptionally well designed, with large zipper pockets on either side for phones and other small items you need to have at hand. Don’t like the pouches? They’re removable, so you can attach different pouches, a holster, or other gear to the MOLLE connectors on the waist belt.
There are two pack sizes available to attach to the Elite Frame: The day-pack-size Elite 1800 (1 lb. 12 oz.) and the roomy Elite 3800 (2 lbs. 7 oz.). Both packs, like the meat shelf on the frame, are made of sturdy, highly water-resistant 500 D Nylon Cordura. Attaching and detaching the pack bags is a breeze. Six attachment points on the pack frame allow the packs to be quickly clipped in. Simply attach the bags to the unloaded frame for your hike in. When your hunt takes a lucky turn, unclip the pack, strap your game bags to the frame and meat shelf, clip the pack bag back on top of the meat, and cinch everything down tight with the pack’s compression straps to pack out the full load. It’s easy and intuitive.
The pack bags themselves were obviously designed by an experienced backcountry hunter. Both have a large zippered top compartment for quick access to lunch and smaller items. They are set up for a hydration bladder and have ports on both sides for the tube. The main compartment in both bags zips fully open so you can lay the pack flat and see everything inside, and the interiors of both main compartments have five zippered mesh pockets so you don’t have to go digging for smaller items. Both packs come with a rain cover zipped into a dedicated bottom pocket and a drop-down pouch that allows you to strap a gun or bow to the pack for hands-free hiking or climbing. Both packs have open pouches on both sides to accommodate water bottles or tripods, and the 3800 has an additional zippered side pocket for a spotting scope.
I have used ultralight pack systems that are slightly lighter in weight than this one, but with its excellent adjustability, rugged construction, features, and ease of use, the Alps OutdoorZ Elite Pack System compares favorably with anything on the market and is an excellent value for the money. I’d like to see the company add an intermediate pack size option for longer day trips or single overnights, but the current system should be ideal for most of my fall elk hunts and summer scouting trips. The frame retails for $249.99; the 1800 pack for $149.99; and the 3800 pack for $199.99.
A combo hunt for birds and big game in central Argentina.
It was late morning, and the day was warming up fast. My outfitter, German, and I were walking quietly, quartering into the wind, when the bulky, reddish-brown forms of two red deer moved ahead of us in the thick brush. I caught a glimpse of what looked like a very large set of antlers disappearing behind the prickly branches of a calden tree.
Momentarily stupefied by the sight of the enormous rack, I stood rooted to the spot. I glanced at German, who mouthed silently, “Wait.” I nodded almost imperceptibly.
The stags had probably been bedded in the brush before they heard us coming, but the thick vegetation obscured us as well as it had hidden them—I hoped. With that and the wind in our favor, they likely hadn’t seen or smelled us, so maybe they wouldn’t go far.
After what seemed an eternity, but was probably only ten minutes, we had seen no other movement nor heard any sounds other than the incessant flutter of doves in the treetops. German made a downward gesture with his hand: Slowly. We moved ahead a step at a time, exercising as much stealth as possible in the thick undergrowth. My eyes flicked from the path ahead to my feet, trying not to step on even the smallest twig. We worked our way another fifty yards or so toward where we had seen the antlers disappear.
And then, there they were. Rising above the tangle like the thick branches of old oak trees were two of the most incredible racks I had ever seen. The two magnificent red stags were browsing calmly in the brush just over a hundred yards away, the sunlight gleaming on a veritable forest of tines.
German set up the shooting sticks, and I rested the .300 Winchester Magnum on them and studied the stags through my scope. They both appeared massive, but German whispered, “The one in front is bigger.” I focused on that one, and at that moment, his head came up and he stared alertly in our direction.
I reminded myself to ignore the rack and focus on the vitals, which were partially obscured by thick brush. As soon as I broke the shot, I was worried it might have landed a bit high. Moments later, the stag was down, but I worked the bolt quickly and put a second shot into him to be sure. As German and I approached the fallen monarch, we heard the sound of branches breaking, and I caught sight of the rocking-chair rack of the second stag as he vanished in the brush.
As I knelt to pay my respects to the stag, the size of his antlers took my breath away. “That’s a gold-medal stag,” German affirmed. “Likely eleven or twelve years old.” I tried to count the myriad points, coming up with 10 on one side and 7 on the other.
The stag was in great condition, with a large body and sleek reddish hide. It was March, and still early in the roar, or brama, as they call the red-deer rut in Argentina.
Diana Rupp with her red stag from La Pampa Province, Argentina.
Once we had finished our photos, two of German’s assistant guides set to work on my stag, quartering it in minutes using a couple of the most gigantic knives I had ever seen. German suggested we head back to the lodge for lunch, but I was in no hurry to leave, fascinated as I was by watching these experts wield their traditional gaucho knives, which, I later learned, they used just as handily to trim a tree branch or slice a piece of steak.
Big red stags, among the world’s most magnificent antlered animals, are the first thing big-game hunters think of when they think of Argentina. Red deer were brought to Argentina’s La Pampa Province from Europe in 1906, and they found the brushy habitat to their liking. With good management, populations grew and thrived.
As my hosts explained it to me, for a red stag in central Argentina, la vida es buena—life is good. They have all the advantage of ideal habitat, plenty to eat, and a far milder year-round climate than they had in their native environs. As a result, Southern Hemisphere stags grow antlers of eye-popping dimensions.
But, as stunning as they are, stags are not the real reason Argentina is the most popular hunting destination in the world, attracting more than 20,000 visiting hunters every year—more than every country in Africa combined. That reason is the ubiquitous eared dove. The resident flocks, numbering in the tens of millions, are considered agricultural pests, consuming as much as 30 percent of the crop yield, and the local farmers encourage hunters to come and shoot as many doves as their shoulders can stand. Avid wingshooters come from all over the world to do exactly that.
While Cordoba is the most common destination for dove shooting, and the foothills of the Andes are the most famous region for stags, La Pampa Province is the place for the hunter who wants to do it all. Its easily accessible location in central Argentina makes it ideally suited to a combo hunt for birds and big game. That’s why I had shepherded both a rifle and a shotgun through Argentina’s complex importation process: I was here to experience the best of both hunting worlds.
From the moment I arrived at the GBH Safaris lodge and game preserve in La Pampa, about 100 miles north of the capital city of Santa Rosa, the terrain in the region, and in fact, the whole hunting vibe, reminded me of Africa. The landscape, consisting of broad openings of tall grass surrounded by large areas of thick brush and dotted with thorny, mesquite-like trees known as calden, is reminiscent of the Dark Continent, as are the fiery orange-red sunsets that paint the horizon every evening. And of course, there’s the familiar thrill of seeing the Southern Cross hanging in the night sky over a crackling campfire—a thrill that never gets old.
The comfortable GBH Safaris lodge in La Pampa Province, Argentina.
The Argentine culture, however, is rich and distinctive. Hunters enjoy a hearty midday asado, followed by a long afternoon siesta. Late-night dinners are accompanied by goblets of excellent local malbec. Seemingly every local is drinking mate out of a gourd with a straw. If you’re lucky, you’ll glimpse gauchos on horseback working cattle, many of them wearing traditional dress and riding effortlessly on sheepskin-lined saddles. And over it all soar seemingly endless flocks of the speedy and challenging game bird the locals call palomas.
I had awakened on my first morning in Argentina to a deafening cacophony of birds. As I would soon learn, the pampas are home to an astonishing array of feathered flying creatures, including noisy flocks of green parakeets, crested caracaras, eagles, flycatchers, and woodpeckers. The doves are in huge flocks nearly everywhere you look, lifting from the trees in shifting black clouds and rocketing over your head on whistling wings.
Because central Argentina’s balmy climate allows for year-round staggered planting and harvesting, doves breed prolifically and they rarely lack for a good meal. I had read about the incredible numbers of these birds, but it was still mind-boggling to stand in a field and watch them wing overhead by the thousands.
Doves and pigeons are considered agricultural pests in Argentina. Dove numbers are legendary, and the opportunity to shoot large numbers attracts hunters from all over the world.
The way of life in Argentina involves late nights and a long afternoon siestas, so for me it took a bit of getting used to, but it works very well for hunting. On a typical day, we would have a morning dove shoot, a hearty lunch and a long break in the afternoon, then head back out for stags or blackbuck in the evening, followed by an after-dark sojourn for pigs or varmints. Dinner would be served as late as 11 p.m. or midnight, followed by a few hours of sleep and another enjoyable day in the field.
The lodge was surrounded by fields of standing corn and cut sunflowers, so we didn’t have to go far to find great dove shooting. Four or five shooters would typically spread out along a field edge or fence line and target birds as they flew across it. While we didn’t have individual “bird boys,” as many lodges do, German’s guides walked along the line periodically, keeping us well supplied with shells and drinks and anything else we needed.
The little palomas are blazing fast and wary. They say doves can fly 55 mph, and I don’t doubt it. I quickly learned not to bother with birds that had flown past me, as they would have already put on their afterburners. Instead I concentrated on incoming doves and crossing shots. As long as I was able to conceal myself behind a tall weed, I had the best luck on incomers, frequently dropping them on the toe of my own boot.
After we’d been in the field for a few hours, the guides would roll up in a truck to pick us up. They’d usually find me surrounded by a pile of doves and a much larger pile of empty shell casings, tired, slightly sunburned, and grinning.
Doves are a challenging gamebird to hit, but the vast numbers of them in Argentina give you plenty of opportunities to hone your wingshooting skills.
In addition to red stags, our big-game list included blackbuck and wild boars. The boars are largely nocturnal, and although I ventured out a couple of nights after dark, I never saw one, although I was treated to sightings of Patagonian hares, a silver fox, and a black-and-white rodent called a vizcacha.
I was, however, hoping to close the deal on a blackbuck, another introduced species (this one originally from India) that has thrived in central Argentina alongside the red deer. Significantly smaller than our pronghorn, these animals have tall, twisting horns and dark, beautifully marked coats from which they get their name. I spent several enjoyable hours spotting and stalking these lovely, elusive little antelope, but each time they gave me the slip in the thick bush.
Late one afternoon I was sitting in an elevated blind with a guide named Matteo, who had taken some time out of working his wizardry on the lodge’s outdoor clay oven and barbecue grill to help me look for a blackbuck, which he called antilope. I know very little Spanish, and good-natured Matteo didn’t speak a word of English, so we had plenty of laughs as we attempted, with varying degrees of success, to communicate.
As evening approached, a bachelor group of blackbuck rams materialized out of the brush about 500 yards away. I studied them through my binocular, then turned to Matteo, who was doing the same. He looked at me with a grin and said, “Grande!”
That was good to know, but there were a dozen rams in the herd. They all looked grande to me, but I was certainly no expert. As the herd worked its way toward us, feeding slowly, I studied the rams but could tell little difference between them.
As they began to move into range of our position, I searched every corner of my brain for my limited Spanish vocabulary. Finally I came up with, “Todos?” (All?)
Well, that made it easy. About 150 yards from the blind, the herd stopped and began milling nervously, and I figured it was now or never. A nice-looking ram was standing clear of the others, and I rested the rifle and carefully squeezed off a shot. Hit through both lungs, he bolted forty yards and dropped stone-dead as the other rams scattered into the trees.
Indian antelope, also called blackbuck, were introduced to Argentina in the 1920s.
The blackbuck turned out to be a very fine, mature ram. We walked up to him as a stunning sunset bathed the pampas in an orange glow. With Matteo’s help, I photographed the beautiful animal in the evening light as a flock of doves fluttered into a waterhole nearby. For a hunter in Argentina, la vida es buena.
For more information on this hunt, contact German Brandazza, GBH Safaris: gbhsafaris.com.ar.
The Lupo and the Cordoba
Argentina is not an easy place in which to import your own firearms, so if you’re going to go through the hassle of bringing your own guns for a bird-and-big-game combo hunt, they might as well be the best possible tools for the job.
I can’t imagine a more ideal rifle/shotgun combo than the one I used on this hunt: Benelli’s Lupo BE.S.T. in .300 Winchester Magnum and the Ethos Cordoba BE.S.T. shotgun in 20-gauge.
The Benelli Lupo BE.S.T. in .300 Winchester Magnum is both beautiful and extremely accurate.
The Lupo rifle comes in several configurations, and every one of these guns I’ve tested has been extremely accurate and consistent. The Lupo BE.S.T. rifles are particularly special, featuring premium AA-grade walnut stocks and Benelli Surface Treatment (BE.S.T.) finish, guaranteed against rust and corrosion for 25 years. Beautiful and bombproof is a pretty irresistible combination in a rifle. I fed the Lupo Hornady’s Precision Hunter ammo with 178-grain ELD-X bullets, which performed perfectly on both the stag and the blackbuck.
Benelli’s Ethos Cordoba shotgun in 20 gauge was an excellent choice for dove shooting.
If you’re going to shoot boxes and boxes of shells at doves, you need a soft-shooting but extremely durable and dependable gun that fits you well. The sleek Ethos Cordoba BE.S.T. shotgun fits the bill. Ported barrels and the ComforTech recoil-reduction system helped my shoulder withstand the rigors of repeated shots, and the inertia-driven semiauto proved flawlessly reliable. I also liked the beveled loading port, large bolt handle, and enhanced trigger guard, which made it easy to load and shoot while wearing my lightweight shooting gloves. And since it also has the BE.S.T. finish, this shotgun boasts excellent rust and corrosion protection.—D.R.
Early in the season may be the best time of all to hunt roe deer.
Image above: This is a nice roebuck with typical three-tined antlers, nothing special, just a nice, average roebuck–sort of like a decent 8-point or medium 10-point whitetail.
The world over, most deer are in hard antler in autumn, so deer hunting is generally a fall pursuit. What that means depends on where you are. In the Northern Hemisphere, it’s September, October, and November. In the Southern Hemisphere, with the seasons opposite, March, April, and May are prime time for red and fallow deer. Tropical deer mess this up a bit. At least some axis, hog deer, muntjac, sambar, etc. are in hard antler in any month. Most of North America’s introduced axis deer come into hard antler in the spring, and rut in July.
In its natural state on its native turf, the roe deer of Eurasia are the primary exception. Males are in hard antler in May, and will shed in early November. Most European countries have rigidly set hunting seasons, just like American states, based around sustainable harvest goals. The biggest difference: That harvest goal is achieved by a much smaller hunting public. Bag limits are generally unknown; it doesn’t matter how the quota is divvied up, just so it’s met. And, by our standards, seasons are ridiculously long.
In Europe, hunting is very much a harvest, with management quotas established. These bucks were taken on a May hunt in southwestern England, with the wildflowers in full bloom. These bucks range from small to fairly large, and the venison is all spoken for by local restaurants.
Seasons vary from country to country, but most roebuck seasons start between April 1 and the beginning of May. Typically, they run into or through October, shutting down before the males start to lose their antlers. Because of management goals, some places run later seasons for females only. I did a driven hunt in Germany in November, with roe deer females on the hit list. I’m guessing European hunters in the group, with more experience, could judge sex more readily than I could. I saw several bucks, pedicels obvious and off-limits, but as small, gray deer drifted (or dashed) through, I didn’t have the confidence to even consider a shot. I waited for pigs.
A dainty roe deer doe crosses a small stream. Experienced European hunters would probably know instantly from body shape that this is a female. Outsiders must look for the antlers, which are often partially obscured by the ears.
With six- to seven-month seasons, hunting pressure light throughout, and Europe’s intensive wildlife management, there’s really no bad time to hunt roebuck. In Austria, Czech Republic, and Italy, I’ve had good roebuck hunting in September and clear into October. However, with ideal hunting for other game (such as red and fallow deer) taking precedence in the fall, most European hunters feel there are two ideal periods to hunts roebuck: The first few weeks of the season, and during the rut, which is in July.
Roebuck hunting in the rut is a little like whitetail hunting in the rut. Older bucks come of the woodwork searching for females, and that’s when big bucks nobody has ever seen before might wander in. Also, it’s the period when skilled hunters have the most success calling roebuck, which is one of the most exciting ways to hunt almost any game (when it works).
Given a choice, I prefer to hunt early. In part, this is because of my North American roots: We tend to be overly focused on the criticality of Opening Day: we feel we must get in there while the game is undisturbed and strike before the orange-clad hordes stink up the woods. The latter doesn’t happen in Europe, but the undisturbed aspect is valid everywhere. With roebuck in spring, there are other advantages. After the long winter, things are greening up, and deer are coming out of the thick stuff and feeding on succulent new growth.
Taken in Romania on the first of May, start of the season, this is a good roebuck, reasonable bases, good length and tines, but not medal class.
Also, and perhaps more important, spring is a wonderful time to be in the woods. Weather is still cool and crisp, wildflowers are everywhere, mushrooms are popping. In North America, we see this with spring turkey hunting, sometimes with black bear, but we don’t get to savor the long, soft days of spring and early summer while deer hunting.
The roebuck, Capreolus capreolus, is a small-bodied deer, large bucks weighing up to perhaps 75 pounds, with short three-tined antlers. Taxonomy places them in the same sub-family as the North American deer of genus Odocoileus, and indeed they have many parallels with our white-tailed deer. They are browsers, bedding in cover and thriving in edge habitat. I like to describe them as “Europe’s whitetail,” widespread and popular.
There are major differences: We have dozens of whitetail races and subspecies. Continent-wide, from the British Isles to eastern Turkey and Iran, there is just one European roe deer. Some biologists separate the isolated populations in Italy and Spain as unique subspecies. Not all agree, and hunters’ record-keeping systems recognize just one European roebuck. The only other roebuck is the Siberian roebuck (C. pygargus), found in varying densities from Kazakhstan to Korea. The Siberian roebuck is much larger, big males up to 130 pounds, similar antlers but longer and taller. I took my one and only Siberian roebuck in the forests of northern Mongolia twenty years ago; otherwise, I know little about them.
The Siberian roebuck of Asia is a significantly larger animal than the European roebuck, with bucks weighing over a hundred pounds. This is Boddington’s only Siberian roebuck, taken in northern Mongolia in 2005.
In recent years I’ve often been asked, “are roe deer found in Texas?” Or anywhere outside of Europe? Well, you can find almost any living creature on one or another Texas ranch. Vague references suggest roe deer have existed in Texas since the 1930s. I don’t doubt it, but I have never been on a ranch that boasted a breeding population. While European red deer have been widely introduced in the Western Hemisphere and South Pacific, this has not been the case with roe deer. You want to hunt roe deer, you need to go to Europe.
This is not a problem. Top to bottom, east to west, Europe offers a lot of opportunity to hunt roebuck. European hunters are accustomed to pay-as-you-go hunting. They love their roebucks, and costs are high for “medal class” trophies. Not so much for nice, representative specimens. Interestingly, to Europeans, roebuck quality is typically judged by mass and pearling at the base, per their CIC system. American hunters are more immersed in systems that place more emphasis on beam and tine length. So, what you or I find impressive, and might consider spectacular because of height and tine length, might not even make bronze by European standards.
Costs vary by country, but much roebuck hunting is wonderfully affordable. Since almost all hunting in Europe is considered a harvest—with a necessary quota—it’s commonplace to have the opportunity to take multiple bucks.
With their wide range, big roebucks are where you find them, like whitetails. Also like whitetails, some areas are known for producing bigger antlers. At the far north of their range, Sweden produces exceptional roebuck. So does Eastern Europe, perhaps especially the rich farmlands of the Danube Valley. My best buck was taken on a wonderful May hunt in Hungary, during gorgeous weather, a couple of roebucks in virtually every field. I took another exceptionally long-antlered buck in Romania, at the very start of the season. Not historically known for big roebuck, Spain has produced some dandies in recent years.
The only catch: As with whitetails, costs are likely to be higher in areas known for exceptional antler quality. I think some of my most enjoyable roebuck hunting has been in England and Scotland. There are big bucks in both places. Jason Hornady got a big one in southwestern England on a May 2014 hunt, by far the largest among a score of bucks taken by our group. Realistically, however, exceptional bucks are few and far between in the UK. That’s just fine. It’s a harvest, with the venison all spoken for. Wonderfully inexpensive, lots of bucks, take ’em as they come. No pressure, just plain fun.
Anywhere, some hunting may be done from stands (often just like whitetail stands), but almost all of my roebucks have been taken by spot-and-stalk, working around the edges of agriculture. It’s always an enjoyable way to hunt, but especially pleasant in mild spring and early summer weather. The fields are turning emerald green, and there are often wildflowers everywhere. You won’t take a buck on every stalk, or on every morning or afternoon outing. It’s not unusual to average 50 percent. In the fall, I love whitetails. In the spring, it’s hard to beat stalking roebuck.
Like whitetails, big roebucks are where you find them. Jason Hornady took this excellent buck on a May hunt in southwestern England.
Complicated present-day realities conflict with popular perceptions. Can there really be too many elephants?
Image above: Elephants in Bwabwata National Park in northeastern Namibia.
The expression on my face in the photos afterward sums it up: still wide-eyed, slightly somber, almost confounded. It isn’t the look of a hunter enjoying what time and effort in the field has finally brought his way; an old Cape buffalo or eland would have had me smiling and perhaps relieved. But I never thought to shoot an elephant.
To a boy riveted by the tales of the old Africa hands, ivory hunting seemed the most romantic and dangerous way imaginable to make a living, and I used to wonder if I’d have the grit to confront and try to kill the largest mammal on land with a chunk of metal the size of a fingertip.
But that was then, and today I try to live in the present. Because they are social, intelligent, evidently thoughtful, and even self-aware, elephants for me abide on a plane above their fellow species of savanna and forest. I have stalked elephants until I could look at them through my sights (and whisper Boom!), but truly killing one seemed beyond the pale—never mind the crazy trophy fees. Once or twice the need to maybe shoot one in self-defense has come up, but the situations evaporated. This time, though, I was asked to do it. Or rather, I was offered the opportunity to do it and I couldn’t say no. It seemed to be a part of safari that few people experience now, and (in the absence of a veterinary team) there was a compelling reason to shoot this one.
An elephant had appeared in the meadow on the far side of the river—the Okavango, in northeastern Namibia. He moved slowly along the high bank until it flattened out and he could step into the water with dignity, and from there he angled out into the current, wading and then swimming. It is commonplace to see elephant and buffalo in that meadow, but this elephant was solitary and massive and center-stage, and he held our attention until he disappeared from the binoculars.
The next morning we came upon him a few miles away, still alone—and bedded down. The Mahango core wildlife area, in Bwabwata National Park, is alive with elephants; it’s unusual to see just one, and I’ve never seen a mature bull anywhere but on his feet. Tracker Gideon hopped off the truck and jogged toward him, clapping his hands. The elephant stood up and moved away, laboriously. In fact, he was limping, heavily favoring his right forefoot. I had to wince, watching him. Jofie Lamprecht, our Professional Hunter, grabbed eight seconds of video and WhatsApped it to the district warden.
An hour and a half later, the warden responded. Jofie studied his phone and turned to me: “Want to shoot an elephant? The warden says, ‘Take him out before he collapses.’ That’s when the vultures will arrive and the predators start eating on him.”
The Caprivi District, Namibia, 22 May 2023: The injured elephant.
It wasn’t hard to find him again, or to stalk within a few yards. It is a sobering sight, an animal of that size and presence throwing up its head and crumpling to the ground. I didn’t hear the shots, didn’t feel the recoil, and can’t tell you exactly where I put the coup de grâce into the top of his skull from behind. My mind was taken up by the enormity of it all. Then there was a stillness before Jofie and Mike and Gideon and Nadila solemnly shook my hand.
People vs. elephants
A century ago, Africa was thought to have 10 million elephants. When I began to visit, 35 years ago, there may have been about 1.1 million of them remaining. Today there are, reportedly, barely more than 400,000 and everyone “knows” that elephants are “endangered.” I’ve been scolded for killing even one of them.
Yet virtually everywhere in Southern Africa that I’ve stayed has been heaving with elephants. I get to go to prime wildlife country, though, not where agribusiness, mining, or other development is going on, or even where villages are expanding into the bush and families are hacking out room for a few stalks of mealies and a herd of goats. It is elephant habitat that is disappearing—and taking the elephants with it.
Ian Parker, who became an outspoken wildlife consultant after leaving the Kenya Game Department in 1964, reminded me (by email) of some hard truths: “Jonathan Kingdon [author of Mammals of Africa, Vols. I-VI] mapped East African elephant range at three points in time—1925, 1950, and 1975. It had declined progressively by over 60 percent. In a nutshell, elephant and human distributions were mirror images of one another. At 20 people per square kilometer, elephant populations were vestigial. At 40 to the square kilometer they were gone. In 1900 the [human] population of Africa was estimated at ~140 million, today it is 1.460 billion, a 10-fold increase; elephant range has declined in similar proportion and will continue to do so for as long as human increase persists.”
Yet, paradoxically, in many of their shrinking ranges—the parks, reserves, hunting concessions, and other conservation areas, and the less-accessible corners that have not yet been hard-hit by humans—elephants are multiplying, sometimes well beyond capacity, and human-elephant conflict is intensifying, despite uncommonly high tolerance by some rural African people. Ecologists are warning us that elephants can bring their own, and other species’, demise with them. They can eat trees, after all.
At 201,000 square miles, KAZA TFCA is the world’s second-largest conservation area, spreading across five African countries. Map courtesy of LTandC.org (Linking Tourism & Conservation)
The recent KAZA survey
In 2022, an aerial survey of KAZA, the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area—201,000 square miles, 128,640,000 acres, across parts of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe—found 227,900 elephants, likely more than half of Africa’s remnants.
Aerial wildlife surveys are notoriously difficult, especially in Africa, but this is 10,930 more elephants than were counted there in 2014-15. Is this a real increase or due to survey variations or migration? In any case, the “carrying capacity” of KAZA has been bumped up by large sums of conservation money—spent, for example, on drilling artificial water holes and opening up migration corridors—so the region may be able to sustain more elephants for longer than previously possible. However, the survey also found slightly more elephant carcasses this time; Darren Potgieter, the survey coordinator, said this would be studied, and cautioned that “factors such as aging populations, improved sampling methodologies, environmental conditions, and poaching could all be at play here.” But wildlife biologists now point to elephant deaths in KAZA due to drought and disease and to vegetation destruction, which may signal elephant overpopulation. Climate disruption surely plays a role too.
Some breeding herds and bulls migrate across KAZA, but the new survey found by far the most elephants within Botswana: 131,909. (Also 3,840 in Zambia; 5,983 in Angola; 21,090 in Namibia; and 65,028 in Zimbabwe. Yes, these add up to 227,850, not 227,900.) This is 1,970 more than the earlier survey found in Botswana—and about 120,000 more elephants than Botswana was thought to have c. 1960, when safari hunting began to develop there.
Botswana’s elephant numbers
No one knows just how many elephants Botswana actually can absorb, but in 1991 its Dept. of Wildlife and National Parks decided that “no more than 55,000 elephants could be sustained without habitat degradation” and recommended “adaptive management.” Botswana is now the epicenter of concern about elephant overpopulation, and some observers are sounding the alarm about “desertification.” Botswana’s 82-page 2021-26 Elephant Management Plan notes the “undesirable impact” that elephants can have on their habitats, and that in some areas canopy trees are being killed by elephants faster than they can re-grow, but adds that “impacts on other species, loss of biodiversity, effects on essential processes and on the ability of the ecosystems to sustain the elephants may all be disputed due to lack of evidence.”
However, “elephant-induced vegetation change” in Botswana has been formally studied since at least 1993 and probably earlier. The best layman’s discussion of the situation I’ve read is a long article (“Elephants: A Crisis of Too Many, Not Too Few”) by Dr. Brian Child that I prepared for the April 2020 issue of the e-zine Conservation Frontlines.
Elephants gouging the trunk of a baobab tree in Botswana. Photo by Ronnie Crous.
Dr. Child has a PhD from Oxford in wildlife and livestock economics; he grew up in Botswana and Zimbabwe, where his father was a national park ecologist and director. In short, to curb the destruction of vegetation in Botswana by elephants, and the resulting impact on other wildlife, he proposes a return to the nation’s successful and apparently sustainable commercial “conservation estate,” which from about 1960 to 1990 derived employment, revenue, hides, ivory, meat, clothing and artifacts from game—all while wildlife numbers rose steadily and elephants apparently were kept in balance. The nation has taken a step in this direction by building a $15 million multi-species abattoir in Tsabong, to support game farming and hunting. (Can it process elephants?)
Managing elephant populations
Maintaining elephant numbers is one thing; reducing a large surplus is entirely another. Ivory poaching has decreased and become almost negligible, at least in reducing overall elephant numbers; and safari hunters (Botswana may also allow “citizen hunters” to take elephants at sharply reduced fees) likely could not take off enough elephants even to blunt their average annual replacement rate of about 5 percent, much less bring present populations down to ecologically healthier levels. Foreign hunters in Botswana and Zimbabwe, where elephant numbers are highest, presently “harvest” about 500 elephants annually; simply to begin to flatten elephant population growth, these hunting numbers would have to increase approximately 20-fold.
The villagers who now descend upon an elephant kill with pangas and ecstatic cries might begin to roll their eyes and say, “What, elephant again? How about a nice hippo instead?” Trophy fees would have to drop dramatically, to put elephants within reach of more hunters, and hunting companies might see this as more work and risk for less pay—or new operators might arrive, setting off turf battles and causing problems through inexperience. The off-take could not all be bulls, either, for this would drastically skew herd dynamics. Inevitably, in some areas photo-tourists would encounter more elephant kills, with the opportunity for more social-media friction between hunters and anti-hunters.
Regardless of these market conditions, elephant populations must be managed. Botswana’s elephant plan does not mention culling. Culling is still included in South Africa’s National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants, updated in 2008, but to my knowledge it has not been carried out there—or anywhere else—since 1994, in Kruger National Park. From 1960 to 1991, Zimbabwe reportedly culled or hunted 46,775 elephants. Following the Trans Africa Drought of 1977-81, South-West Africa (as Namibia was then) said it culled 570 elephants to reduce pressure on black rhinos and roan antelope in especially dry areas.
Culling is not a one-time adjustment; elephant births may increase afterward because more food is available, and the need for culling becomes ongoing. Culling can be effective and inexpensive, but it does have drawbacks and logistical challenges.
Leaving tons of carcasses to rot in one spot can lead to outbreaks of disease, and heaven help the national park whose visitors come upon a charnel ground of 40 or 50 elephant carcasses, old and young, male and female, piled together and reeking in the sun. To prevent social disintegration, entire family groups are wiped out together. Selectively killing a few “problem” animals, as every elephant-range country does occasionally, is not culling in this sense; nor is generally illegal “retaliatory” killing by rural people who’ve been harmed by elephants.
In Kruger Park, in northeastern South Africa, where roads are good, the carcasses were taken in closed trucks to abattoirs that canned the meat for sale in markets. The BBC News pointed out that these contractors and distributors could not gear up for the work without some assurance it would continue—another factor in an overall culling plan. (But in Botswana, trucking elephant carcasses out of the Okavango Delta, for example, is impossible; those animals would have to be intercepted elsewhere along their migratory routes—if even feasible.)
Reportedly, the canned meat sold well. If CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, were to lift the counterproductive ban on regulated trade in elephant ivory, the economic—in addition to the ecological—incentive for culling might be even stronger.
Besides the C-word, other controls
Would it be strong enough to enable KAZA countries to shrug off the subsequent firestorm of protest by international animal-protection groups? And at least the threat of a tourism boycott? Candidly, this is what politicians and bureaucrats fear most about culling elephants—videos on social media, followed by accusations of a return to “apartheid-era” or “colonialist” thinking. In 2021, a news report that Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Authority was considering culling elephants drew instant condemnation from a group that equated culling with extinction.
So what’s a nation with too many elephants to do? Recently Namibia and Zimbabwe sold a few hundred live-caught elephants to China and Middle Eastern countries for zoos. The goal was not to reduce elephant numbers but rather to raise some much-needed cash for conservation. The animals were captured and moved under veterinary supervision, but nevertheless an international public outcry followed.
Relocating elephants in-country—away from villages, for example—has been tried too, with little success; elephants tend to return. As well, the cost is prohibitive; in 2018, Zimbabwe reported that capturing and moving 100 elephants cost about $400,000, an unsustainable expense.
Fertility control for elephants has been studied extensively, beginning with the reproductive physiologies of cows and bulls and proceeding to the social aspects of breeding among different age classes, and then gestation and lactation periods and intercalving intervals among cows. My favorite part is comparing NDVI, the Normalized Differential Vegetation Index, to fecal progesterone metabolite concentrations during estrus and in pregnancy, and how these vary in the wet and dry seasons.
Briefly, then, it’s not just a matter of darting elephants with a vaccine—which hasn’t been developed yet, or tested—from a helicopter. Even if it were, the effects of contraception on elephant behavior have not been determined. (The behavior of animals that weigh tons is consequential.) The final considerations are methodology and costs, which are, respectively, complex and high. The impacts of birth control are not immediate, either; population numbers will begin to go down only when the mortality rate finally exceeds the birth rate. A cow elephant’s gestation period is nearly two years.
Meanwhile, in Namibia . . .
To return to the nation where this story began: With respect to wildlife, and especially elephants, Namibia may be unique. Its Constitution mandates the “maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity . . . and utilization of living natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of the Namibians, both present and future.” (“Sustainable use” has become code for “hunting.” Namibia strongly supports managed hunting, for a variety of reasons.)
Not only has Namibia’s total elephant population approximately tripled, to about 24,000, since independence from South Africa in 1990, but thanks partly to the nation’s communal conservancies, its elephant-distribution range is actually expanding; no habitat shrinkage there. (Only northeastern Namibia lies within KAZA; The nation has elephants in the northwest too, which add to the 21,090 counted in the 2022 survey.)
This is not to say that elephants are not a concern in Namibia—human-elephant conflict is worsening—but that, in the second-least-densely populated country on earth, there is still room for elephants and people to prosper. And, overall, Namibia sincerely appreciates its elephants; they draw visitors.
Namibian hunting operators are presently allowed to export 93 elephant bulls per year. The nation’s 119-page National Elephant Conservation and Management Plan 2021/2022 – 2030/2031 contains but one sentence that could refer to culling: “Other ways of reducing overconcentration of elephants (lethal removal, translocation) are used as means of last resort.”
A young baobab tree killed by elephants. The collar of rocks around the trunk was meant to deter them, but if it isn’t maintained eventually the elephants roll the rocks away.
In June 2021, I returned to Bwabwata National Park, in Namibia’s Caprivi District, for the first time in 16 years. Lions roared along the river almost every night, something I’d not heard in 2005; I also saw many more elephants than in 2005. In June 2023, when I shot the injured tusker, we came across even more elephants than in 2021. This is likely coincidental; but it was clear that, in two years, more of the baobab trees had been attacked—the bark stripped away and the trunks splintered—by elephants. With their enormous canopies and root systems, their fruit and their ability to store moisture, baobabs are fundamental to the semi-arid savannah ecosystem; and they may live for centuries—if unmolested.
The lessons of Tsavo
The worst elephant boom-and-bust of modern times was the Tsavo die-off of 1970-73 in Kenya, when elephant overpopulation and drought turned 8,000 square miles of woodland into a moonscape. Poachers and native hunters as well as the drought were blamed, but the reality was that elephant “conservation” had been too successful within Tsavo National Park. According to Peter Beard (The End of the Game), “A director of the Tsavo Research Team estimates that thirty thousand elephants died there from starvation, constipation, and heart disease—all attributable to density and mismanagement.”
Concerning the evident increase in elephant numbers in Bwabwata National Park and their impact on the baobab trees, Dr. Malan Lindeque (former Permanent Secretary of Namibia’s Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism) told me that he doesn’t think a Tsavo scenario is likely there because BNP is part of KAZA—an interconnected system that enables elephants to move from the park into adjacent Angola, southwestern Zambia and Botswana. In other words, there’s still room. I didn’t ask for his thoughts on what Botswana should do with its 130,000-plus elephants.
Harking back to Dr. Child’s comments about Botswana’s “conservation estate”: By 1980, a company called Botswana Game Industries was buying hides, furs, ivory, and other raw materials from more than 5,000 local Batswana hunters and refining them into millions of dollars’ worth of wildlife products. After diamonds and cattle, BGI reportedly was Botswana’s largest revenue producer.
Ian Parker was a shareholder in and consultant to the company; in 1983, he told me, he advised management to change course: “I’d been tracking the success of the animal-rights movement worldwide in convincing a gullible public that it was ethically wrong to buy wildlife products.” Since BGI couldn’t afford an equally powerful counter-PR campaign, Parker felt it best to bow to the inevitable and switch over to processing cattle hides. But today, Parker says, African nations that heed foreign animal-rights groups and anti-hunting politicians have only themselves to blame.
A different standard for Africa
Ironically, while hunters kill enormous numbers of animals across North America, Great Britain, and Europe, some uninformed or misinformed citizens of those countries have let themselves be convinced that it is proper to demand that nations thousands of miles away cease the killing of their wildlife, however damaging, dangerous and over-abundant it may be. Is this not neo-colonialism? And did these Western countries not wipe out, or nearly, some of their own megafauna before learning basic conservation lessons?
Legislation to ban the import of hunting trophies has come before the British Parliament three times in recent years. In March 2024, six African nations sent delegations to London to protest the proposed ban on the grounds that it would reduce funding for wildlife conservation (including anti-poaching patrols to protect elephants) and severely impact people that rely on hunting for jobs, revenue, and meat.
Botswana’s Assistant Minister for State President offered to send 10,000 elephants to London’s Hyde Park so that Britons could “have a taste of living alongside elephants, which are overwhelming my country. In some areas, there are more of these beasts than people. They are killing children who get in their path. They trample and eat farmers’ crops, leaving Africans hungry. They steal the water from pipes that is flowing to the people. They have lost their fear of humans.
“Elephant numbers, just like those of Scottish stags, have to be controlled. Hunters in the Highlands pay to shoot deer and put their antlers on their walls. So why is Britain trying to stop Africa doing the same?
“Botswana is the most successful country in the world at looking after elephants, buffalo, and lions. We don’t want colonial interference from Britain.”
Well-managed hunting can be a significant component of conservation, particularly in funding and incentivizing it. Culling, or cropping—of deer, wolves, bison, and any number of invasive species, from cane toads to feral housecats, rats to mink—is routine in the Western world, and springbok, impala, and other antelope are still periodically thinned in Southern Africa. But all this cuts little ice with people who believe the best way to conserve charismatic animals is to, well, not kill them.
Killing elephants in particular has become taboo, and even many sensible, experienced hunters say they would not do it; they may grasp the need, but it’s a personal choice. Why are elephants different? We know why; I said it myself, in the third paragraph: They are intelligent, social, thoughtful, self-aware. Elephant-range states face stark choices.
About the author: Silvio Calabi is a retired publishing executive and a lifelong conservationist and hunter. He lives on the coast of Maine and in the mountains of Colorado.