Is there any difference between a Kalahari Gemsbok and any other? Same for a Kalahari Springbuck. Have never seen these terms used before. Thanks

.

What surprised me about the Kalahari was how much more hospitable it looked than the area around, say, El Paso, Texas. The word "Kalahari" had just imprinted a picture in my mind until I got there.

Thanks for the help.

Oddly enough, on the the SCI recordbook minimums list, both Springbok and Gemsbok are listed as "North American - Introduced" - (!?). To find African Gemsbok (to differentiate) you have to look under "K" - (it's listed as Kalahari Gemsbok and shows 3 subcatagories (if not subspecies) and there's also an Angola Gemsbok (under A)). I don't know where you'd find Springbok (not under K or S). It makes the whole system seem kind of ridiculous. No?

S.

Actually, there are the two Kalahari Gemsbok listed, and then Kalahari Springbok. Take a look on the Record Book minimums web page.

They charge about 3-500 more for the Kalahari type Gemsbok. I can't tell them apart.

A biologist friend told me once that northern Namibian gemsbok were more closely linked and developed to the original Angolan gemsbok, which was smaller. They no longer accept any entries into that category, I believe. I have no idea myself, but SCI has the minimum 10" lower for the Namibian (78) than the others from RSA, Botswana, etc (88).

Anybody have any definite info?????????

By the way, going to Texas to shoot African game just seems wrong!

quote:

Originally posted by Blank:
Actually, there are the two Kalahari Gemsbok listed, and then Kalahari Springbok. Take a look on the Record Book minimums web page.

Oops, you're right; long day. Still, it seems an odd way to list them, especially in cases where there are no such species or subspecies - and it makes it difficult to find some. Also, it just looks like SCI is creating their own arbitrary subcatagories just to spread out the awards. At any rate, thanks for the correction.
S.

The Kalahari gemsbok is the same gemsbok that you get in most of Southern Africa IMO. The Northern namibian gemsbok has shorter horns due to them wearing down easier in the thicker bush, as well as they might have Angolan blood in them. I have heard that SCI is thinking of registering any gemsbok shot above Rehoboth in Namibia (about 87km south of Windhoek) as Angolan gemsbok.
However, the Kalahari springbok is definately different, even though there is no official subspecies recognised by the biologists. Their horns are much better, and if you go out and just shoot the first 10 mature rams in the true Kalahari/ rest of Namibia, I can guarentee you you WILL have shot one over 14". I also cull a lot of springbok, and to shoot anything bigger than 12" in a region that has no Kalahari animals introduced, is extremely difficult. In fact, thinking back to the last cull where we shot close to 200 animals, I cannot recall a set of horns over 12". Same applies for body size, with the Kalahari rams outweighing the other by about 30%. Also, the South African Karoo/ Freestate springbok, sometimes has a extra brown stripe in the face, where this is extremely rare in Namibian/ Kalahari animals.

Karl, I took a springbok in the free state that was 12 3/4 inches and my PH was pissed that I shot it. He said it was a good one when I asked him so I thought he wanted me to shoot it. We saw one that he thought would go 14 plus inches. There must be a few good ones around in the FS.

.

Hi Donato
Yes, I know there are some good springbok in the Freestate, but 99.99% of them are desendants of introduced Kalahari springbok. If a ranch has good springbok on it, you can bet your life that that owner has introduced new genes, mostly directly from the Kalahari, sometimes from other ranches that has Kalahari genes in it. I have litterally shot 1000's of springbok, mostly in Namibia, but also a lot in SA. On "non supplemented" ranches or farms, the biggest that I have shot so far, was just over 14". (By non supplemented I mean where there has never been any introduction to the springbok population in the region.) BTW ALf, you are correct, the Kalahari streches all the way to Angola, but also down to Kimberley, and normally Kimberley springbok arn't too great either. I wish I could post a photo, to show you what a real Kalahari ram looks like....

Karl
Read that the high phosphate content of the vegetation in the Kalahari area is the reason
for the horn growth.

.

My one springbok from Erindi ranch in Namibia last year was 16.5", with 7+" bases. Ranked number 13 in SCI. Passed up another one 10 minutes later which turned out to be almost 17", but much lighter in mass. In the last 2 seasons I don't think they let anyone shoot any under 13-14". Northern rams definately have the length over RSA.

ALF, I am not saying all springbok are desendants of Kalahari springbok, all i am sayong is that it is common parctice in SA to "reintroduce" springbok or supplement occuring herds with Kalahari springbok. Go and look at live auction prices in SA, the so called Kalahari animals are fetching a premium at the auctions. Now, not all Namibian springbok are gaints, as i mentioned in my article in Magnum, "hunting the Karas mountains", most of southern Namibia have excptional springbok (occuring naturally), but I have not seen many good heads in the Karas region. Sure, the occational 14" or thereabut, but nothing spectacular.
BTW, Blank, that is a real good springbok, congrats.

.

There are variances between species ans subspecies but many of the 'offical' names given to various anmilas, like springbok, bushbuck, kudu etc that are geographically adjacent are simply products of hunting and SCI etc etc. One can bag 'all' the springbok like the karroo, kalahari etc etc as it give hunter for to bag to achiave certain levels. Usually there is no taxonomical difference between the animals, just regional variations.

I never read the ful posts from Karl and Alf but what Karl was say about supplementing sprinkbok with the 'bigger' kalahari types (typically bigger, not always) seems to be quite common...also reflected in the auctions.

It seems hunters get confused about what SCI 'officially' deliniates as 'species' that are in fact taxonomically identical with general regional differences..hey don't blame me, blame Linaeus!

So, With all this being said, would any of you
pay a higher Fee for these animals?
Thank you