Text and Wildfire Smoke Photos©Jim Robertson

These days, there are times when it seems Mother Nature hates us and is out to kill us, but, though she’d be well within her rights considering how recklessly and thoughtlessly she’s been abused throughout our species’ long history, I can assure you She has nothing more than self-preservation in mind.

I refer to Mother Nature (or Mother Earth) as “She” in part because “He” has already been so widely used by believers in a Great Creator, whom, if he in fact existed and brought forth all life in its present state, would have every reason to want with equal fervor to do away with our species (which I can imagine He regrets making in His own image).

No, Mother Nature’s motive for her recent destructive behavior is to begin to clean the slate (as has happened numerous times in the past) to re-stimulate the evolutionary process that will eventually lead to even more diversity of life than existed before our increasingly one-sided epoch, even as our species of homo dreams of colonizing new planets across the vast void of space.

But, if a Mother or Father figure has anything to say about it, I’m sure they’d tell us that before we can go out and play, we have to finish our homework and start trying to get along with our brothers and sisters. Based on humans’ past record, I wouldn’t hold my breath…

Will McDonald’s Ever Stop Expanding?

Environment

ByClaire HamlettJuly 26, 2021

Read Next

Epicurious Says Goodbye to Beef, But There’s Still Meat on the Menu

McDonald’s announced in June that it will be opening 50 new restaurants and hiring 20,000 new staff in a major expansion across the UK and Ireland. Media outlets reported the news in their business sections, focusing on the employment opportunities and how the company would introduce “more flexible” restaurant layouts to better serve customers whose habits and preferences have been changed by the pandemic. 

But what does the growth of one of the UK’s (and the world’s) biggest vendors of beef burgers mean for animals and the environment, and how does it square with new recommendations to make the UK’s food system fit for the future?

McDonald’s already has around 1,300 restaurants in the UK, serving three million beef patties to 3.5 million customers daily, and meat made from around 30 million chickens a year—though this figure, from 2010, is now likely higher. Globally, there are 39,000 McDonald’s restaurants, 1000 of which opened in 2020. Around 50 million burgers are reportedly sold a day across all these locations. Beef typically generates 60 kilograms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per kilogram of meat produced—the most of any food product—and, along with lamb and mutton, requires 100 times more land to produce than plant-based foods. 

Chicken is usually thought to be less emissions-intensive, but the rocketing number of chickens being farmed has hugely increased their impact on the environment, with great swathes of South American rainforest cut down to produce soy for chicken feed. 

“Meat production is a leading driver of climate change and biodiversity loss,” says Jennifer Molidor, senior food campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Expanding corporate reach, without making meaningful strides towards menu changes, is just a way for McDonald’s to pass the buck on climate change and cloak it in ‘job creation.’”

Making changes to its menu is exactly what activists have lately been demanding of McDonald’s. Animal Rebellion, an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion, has recently been engaging in a wave of actions against the fast food chain to demand it transition to a just, sustainable plant-based menu by 2025. Activists have staged weekly ‘McSit-Ins’ at McDonald’s restaurants, blockaded its distribution centers, and, most recently, blockaded the factory that produces its three million daily burger patties for several days, preventing products from leaving the facility. Activists say that McDonald’s is a prominent symbol of the system they really want to change—the entire animal agriculture industry.

Molidor thinks activists are warranted in targeting companies like McDonald’s with a big environmental footprint. “People should stand up to companies that insist on destroying their communities and the planet,” she says. “Companies like McDonald’s have a responsibility to their customers, who are increasingly demanding plant-based options, and their shareholders, who should be concerned about the risks presented by the climate crisis.”

McDonald’s rolled out its ‘McPlant’ plant-based options in the UK this year, following belatedly in the footsteps of other fast food outlets such as Burger King and KFC. There is now a plant-based burger, wrap, and ‘dippers’ available on its menu. Different plant-based options are available in other countries; a McPlant burger, developed with Beyond Meat, is now available in the U.S. and Canada. Whether these plant-based items will prove popular remains to be seen; McDonald’s recently dropped the McVeggie burger from its menu in Australia less than two years after it was introduced due to lack of demand.

Empty climate pledges

Aside from adding a few meat-free options, McDonald’s has shown in other ways that it is not oblivious to its impact on the climate, environment, or the animals whose meat it serves to its customers. In 2018, it announced it was setting “Science Based Targets” to cut its GHG emissions from its restaurants and offices by 36 percent by 2030 from a 2015 base year, to reduce emissions intensity (per metric ton of food and packaging) across its supply chain by 31 percent by 2030 from 2015 levels. The company predicted that this would save 150 million metric tons of emissions—the equivalent of removing 32 million cars from the roads for a year.

As with all climate pledges, this one deserves scrutiny (see this article from the Counter for an in-depth analysis). By reducing only the emissions intensity of its food supply chain, instead of its absolute emissions, McDonald’s could still increase its overall emissions if it keeps increasing the amount of beef it buys and sells. And that is clearly what it intends to do given its planned growth in the UK and globally. How they plan to reduce these relative emissions is another point of concern.

McDonald’s claims to be making its beef sustainable by “supporting the development of national multi-stakeholder beef sustainability programs. These programs emphasize practices that align with the global definition of beef sustainability outlined by the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) Principles and Criteria…” McDonald’s helped to establish the GRSB in 2011 in order to define sustainability in the beef supply chain. The bulk of the GRSB’s members are from the meat industry, including industry associations and meat processors such as Cargill and JBS, but draws its environmental credibility from founding partner World Wildlife Fund (WWF)—which has been accused multiple times of helping destructive corporations to greenwash their activities.

How do the GRSB principles and criteria improve McDonald’s environmental and climate impact? It’s difficult to tell, as whether or not they have met the criteria “that need to be met in order to adhere to a principle” is determined by the members of the GRSB. What does it mean, for example, for soil health to be “maintained or improved through implementation of appropriate management practices”? What are appropriate management practices and who determines them? Holistic grazing is clearly a big part of the agenda, as the Savory Institute, which promotes this type of livestock management, is also a member. 

The research on holistic grazing suggests its capacity to store carbon in the soil is modest and time-limited, and it can significantly increase the amount of land used to raise cattle, often to the detriment of wildlife. By contrast, there is clearer evidence that significantly cutting beef production is needed to reduce GHG emissions and free up land for nature restoration.  

Molidor, who has written about the problems of viewing cattle as a climate solution, is unconvinced that McDonald’s can really succeed in becoming more sustainable while continuing with its current food offerings, particularly as it is expanding. “At the scale that McDonald’s produces burgers, even the best practices cause enormous harm to the environment,” she says.

In focusing on the sustainability of its beef, McDonald’s seems to have overlooked the sustainability of its chicken products. Poultry News reported in 2017 that McDonald’s chicken sales outstrip its beef sales in the UK. McDonald’s sources the chicken for its British restaurants from several countries, including the UK, the Netherlands, France, Thailand, and Brazil. The UK alone imports 3.1 million tonnes of soy per year, the majority from South America, with the Poultry Site estimating that 60 percent is fed to farmed chickens. Last year, a joint investigation by the Guardian, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, ITV, and Greenpeace Unearthed found that retailers including McDonald’s source chickens from UK producers fed on soy linked to thousands of forest fires and logging in the Brazilian Cerrado.

“If McDonald’s really cares about its environmental impact, it should be looking to end any reliance on South American soya,” says Rob Percival, head of food policy at the Soil Association. “Or better still, it should be looking to serve much less soya-fed meat, especially chicken.”

Lagging animal welfare

In terms of the animals farmed to provide McDonald’s with its supply of meat, the company’s welfare commitments lag behind other fast food chains, according to a new report by World Animal Protection. Notably, it has not signed up for the Better Chicken Commitment. In August 2020 campaign group Animal Equality released an investigation into eight British chicken farms owned by major chicken producer Moy Park, one of McDonald’s suppliers, that showed chickens were suffering from injuries and sores from fast growth and unsanitary conditions, deprived of water, and dying by having their necks crushed by workers. 

For cattle, the GRSB principles and criteria again set the welfare standards, which are vague and lacking any indication of how McDonald’s monitors or enforces them. The company states that its UK and Ireland restaurants source all their beef and pork from British and Irish farms, but doesn’t explain how it could source such huge and increasing volumes of meat without relying on industrial cattle feedlots, of which there are now around a dozen in the UK, or intensive pig farms, of which there are now at least 259.

Lack of leadership

McDonald’s UK expansion is happening right at a moment when it is most at odds with the future course Britain needs to set for itself. 

Right now, a spotlight is shining brightly on the climate leadership of the UK. In April, the government set in law the world’s most ambitious national climate target, vowing to cut emissions by 78 percent by 2035. The UK is also the host of the UN Climate Conference, COP26, in November. The recently published government-commissioned National Food Strategy lays out what this all means when it comes to food policy, calling for a 30 percent reduction in meat by 2030, as well as big cuts to the amount of junk food consumed by British people for the sake of public health. 

“All businesses—from retailers to restaurant chains—will have a role to play in helping us to achieve (and ultimately go beyond) these targets,” says Percival. “If McDonald’s is expanding, we can only hope they increase their provision of healthy plant-based options. At the moment there isn’t a single vegetable offered on the children’s menu.”

The government is certainly not giving businesses any nudges. In its 2021 progress report to parliament, the government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) warned that the government has failed to implement policies to meet the CCC’s more modest recommendation of a 20 percent reduction in meat consumption by 2030. 

Even so, Molidor, like Animal Rebellion, thinks that a huge company like McDonald’s could make a difference if it would take the initiative. “McDonald’s should step up to be a leader in this industry by making real commitments to better menus,” she says. “It could make creative and effective marketing efforts to support such changes. Less beef, more plants, smaller meat portions, and alternative milks for milkshakes are some easy steps that provide menu choices and lighten the company’s impact. Without making a bold effort long-term, this company’s wimpy climate efforts compared to competitors may leave customers deciding its menus belong back in the stone age.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-head-of-the-nra-and-his-wife-secretly-shipped-their-elephant-trophies-home

The couple had their names removed from the shipment, and placed an order for the animals’ feet to be turned into “stools,” an “umbrella stand,” and a “trash can.”

By Mike SpiesJuly 29, 2021

This story was published in partnership with The Trace, a nonprofit news organization covering guns in America.

In the early fall of 2013, an export company in Botswana prepared a shipment of animal parts for Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association, and his wife, Susan. One of the business’s managers e-mailed the couple a list of trophies from their recent hunt and asked them to confirm its accuracy: one cape-buffalo skull, two sheets of elephant skin, two elephant ears, four elephant tusks, and four front elephant feet. Once the inventory was confirmed, the e-mail stated, “we will be able to start the dipping and packing process.” Ten days later, Susan wrote back with a request: the shipment should have no clear links to the LaPierres. She told the shipping company to use the name of an American taxidermist as “the consignee” for the items, and further requested that the company “not use our names anywhere if at all possible.” Susan noted that the couple also expected to receive, along with the elephant trophies, an assortment of skulls and skins from warthogs, impalas, a zebra, and a hyena. Once the animal parts arrived in the States, the taxidermist would turn them into decorations for the couple’s home in Virginia, and prepare the elephant skins so they could be used to make personal accessories, such as handbags.

The LaPierres felt secrecy was needed, the e-mails show, because of a public uproar over an episode of the hunting show “Under Wild Skies,” in which the host, Tony Makris, had fatally shot an elephant. The N.R.A. sponsored the program, and the couple feared potential blowback if the details of their Botswana hunt became public. Footage of their safari, which was filmed for “Under Wild Skies” and recently published by The Trace and The New Yorker, shows that Wayne had struggled to kill an elephant at close range, while Susan felled hers with a single shot and cut off its tail in jubilation. Plans to air an episode featuring the LaPierres’ hunt were cancelled.

Records obtained by The Trace and The New Yorker show that Susan leveraged the LaPierres’ status to secretly ship animal trophies from their safari to the U.S., where the couple received free taxidermy work. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has regulatory authority over the N.R.A., is currently seeking to dissolve the nonprofit for a range of alleged abuses, including a disregard for internal controls designed to prevent self-dealing and corruption by its executives. In a complaint filed last August, James’s office asserted that trophy fees and taxidermy work “constituted private benefits and gifts in excess of authorized amounts pursuant to NRA policy to LaPierre and his wife.” The new records appear to confirm those allegations. The N.R.A.’s rules explicitly state that gifts from contractors cannot exceed two hundred and fifty dollars. The shipping and taxidermy of the Botswana trophies cost thousands, and provided no benefit to the N.R.A.—only to the LaPierres. In the complaint, James’s office alleged that the LaPierres also received improper benefits related to big-game hunting trips in countries including Tanzania, South Africa, and Argentina. The attorney general declined to comment further on the details of the case.

Taxidermy work orders containing the LaPierres’ names called for the elephants’ four front feet to be turned into “stools,” an “umbrella stand,” and a “trash can.” At their request, tusks were mounted, skulls were preserved, and the hyena became a rug. The episode represents a rare instance in which the gun group’s embattled chief executive is captured, on paper, unambiguously violating N.R.A. rules; the e-mails show that Susan directed the process while Makris’s company, Under Wild Skies Inc., which received millions of dollars from the N.R.A., picked up the tab.

Andrew Arulanandam, the N.R.A.’s managing director of public affairs, said, over e-mail, that the LaPierres’ “activity in Botswana—from more than seven years ago—was legal and fully permitted.” The couple’s safari trips, he added, were meant to “extol the benefits of hunting and promote the brand of the N.R.A. with one of its core audiences.” Moreover, he claimed, “Many of the most notable hunting trophies in question are at the N.R.A. museum or have been donated by the N.R.A. to other public attractions.”

The LaPierres’ effort to keep their taxidermy work secret spanned four months and involved multiple individuals, companies, and countries. On September 27, 2013, the shipping company in Botswana sent its first e-mail to the LaPierres and informed them that the animal parts would be sent to a different company, in Johannesburg, South Africa, before making their way to the United States. “We will be keeping you advised on the progress of this shipment as it moves along these processes,” the message said. In early October, after multiple phone calls with Susan, the American taxidermist wrote to one of the shipping agents involved in the exportation process. He explained that there had been a recent controversy involving Makris, and that the LaPierres “can not afford bad publicity and a out cry.” The taxidermist added, “That is why they are trying not to have there names show up on these shipments so the information does not fall into the wrong hands.” Two months later, the taxidermist checked in with Makris, and asked what he should do with the items once he received them. “W and Susan will tell you how they want theirs mounted,” Makris replied, before reminding the taxidermist that “they said you could handle the import discreetly.” Makris then informed the taxidermist that he would pick up the couple’s tab.

VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKERHow Far Can Abused Women Go to Protect Themselves?

Throughout December, 2013, e-mails show that the taxidermist negotiated with both export companies on the couple’s behalf, with Susan, and also others, copied. “AS requested by the LaPierre’s in a earlier email there name and contact information is to be replaced with my name and contact information,” one note to the Botswana company read. The organization replied that trophies “can only be exported from Botswana in the name of the licensee,” and that “it’s been that way for years, and the export regulations stipulate this.” The taxidermist replied, “This request was only made by Susan and Wayne LaPierre and understand you need to follow the law were applicable.”

The taxidermist then turned his attention to the company in South Africa. On December 10th, the taxidermist told Susan that, once the hunting trophies arrived in Johannesburg, an agent would generate a new air waybill to attach to the shipment and enter the taxidermist’s name on it as the consignee, instead of the LaPierres’. When the trophies arrived in the United States and were cleared through government agencies, it would look as though they belonged to the taxidermist. “Awesome,” Susan replied.

Once the shipping crates landed in Johannesburg, another contact of the taxidermist’s drove two hours to check if the LaPierres’ names were written on the containers. When the friend discovered that they were, he scrubbed them off. In late January, 2014, the taxidermist told Susan that the shipment had arrived. “Looks like everything is here and no protestors,” he wrote.

After Susan killed the elephant in Botswana, video shows, she was fixated on the creature’s feet. As she touched them, she said, “He’s so wrinkly. . . . Wow. A podiatrist would love working on him.” Photographs of the taxidermied appendages show that the animal’s wrinkled gray skin, the light coating of hair, and the massive, cracked toenails are all preserved, and, in the case of the stools, topped with wooden rings and black leather seating pads.

The taxidermist had successfully completed a highly sensitive, laborious project. Two years later, in 2016, he reached out to Susan because he was trying to buy a boat from someone she and Wayne knew, and he hoped that Wayne could connect them. In an e-mail, the taxidermist said it was fine if she could not help, noting that “life will go on.” Still, he asked for the courtesy of a reply, one way or the other. He did not receive one.

Arulanandam, the N.R.A spokesman, alleged that “communications” with the taxidermist stopped after he “appeared to make threats against members of an N.R.A. delegation that participated in the Botswana excursion. He also sought benefits and payments to which he was not entitled.”

The taxidermist wrote a parting e-mail three months later, expressing his frustration at the lack of response. It wasn’t so long ago, he said, that Susan had “begged” him over the phone to remove the LaPierres’ names from their “harvested Elephants” and promised him “ ‘A BIG FAVOR’ ” in return. In case she had forgotten, he reminded her, “you could not afford protesters” and a “media shit storm.”

How the Head of the N.R.A. and His Wife Secretly Shipped Their Elephant Trophies Home

The couple had their names removed from the shipment, and placed an order for the animals’ feet to be turned into “stools,” an “umbrella stand,” and a “trash can.”

By Mike SpiesJuly 29, 2021

This story was published in partnership with The Trace, a nonprofit news organization covering guns in America.

In the early fall of 2013, an export company in Botswana prepared a shipment of animal parts for Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association, and his wife, Susan. One of the business’s managers e-mailed the couple a list of trophies from their recent hunt and asked them to confirm its accuracy: one cape-buffalo skull, two sheets of elephant skin, two elephant ears, four elephant tusks, and four front elephant feet. Once the inventory was confirmed, the e-mail stated, “we will be able to start the dipping and packing process.” Ten days later, Susan wrote back with a request: the shipment should have no clear links to the LaPierres. She told the shipping company to use the name of an American taxidermist as “the consignee” for the items, and further requested that the company “not use our names anywhere if at all possible.” Susan noted that the couple also expected to receive, along with the elephant trophies, an assortment of skulls and skins from warthogs, impalas, a zebra, and a hyena. Once the animal parts arrived in the States, the taxidermist would turn them into decorations for the couple’s home in Virginia, and prepare the elephant skins so they could be used to make personal accessories, such as handbags.

The LaPierres felt secrecy was needed, the e-mails show, because of a public uproar over an episode of the hunting show “Under Wild Skies,” in which the host, Tony Makris, had fatally shot an elephant. The N.R.A. sponsored the program, and the couple feared potential blowback if the details of their Botswana hunt became public. Footage of their safari, which was filmed for “Under Wild Skies” and recently published by The Trace and The New Yorker, shows that Wayne had struggled to kill an elephant at close range, while Susan felled hers with a single shot and cut off its tail in jubilation. Plans to air an episode featuring the LaPierres’ hunt were cancelled.

Records obtained by The Trace and The New Yorker show that Susan leveraged the LaPierres’ status to secretly ship animal trophies from their safari to the U.S., where the couple received free taxidermy work. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has regulatory authority over the N.R.A., is currently seeking to dissolve the nonprofit for a range of alleged abuses, including a disregard for internal controls designed to prevent self-dealing and corruption by its executives. In a complaint filed last August, James’s office asserted that trophy fees and taxidermy work “constituted private benefits and gifts in excess of authorized amounts pursuant to NRA policy to LaPierre and his wife.” The new records appear to confirm those allegations. The N.R.A.’s rules explicitly state that gifts from contractors cannot exceed two hundred and fifty dollars. The shipping and taxidermy of the Botswana trophies cost thousands, and provided no benefit to the N.R.A.—only to the LaPierres. In the complaint, James’s office alleged that the LaPierres also received improper benefits related to big-game hunting trips in countries including Tanzania, South Africa, and Argentina. The attorney general declined to comment further on the details of the case.

Taxidermy work orders containing the LaPierres’ names called for the elephants’ four front feet to be turned into “stools,” an “umbrella stand,” and a “trash can.” At their request, tusks were mounted, skulls were preserved, and the hyena became a rug. The episode represents a rare instance in which the gun group’s embattled chief executive is captured, on paper, unambiguously violating N.R.A. rules; the e-mails show that Susan directed the process while Makris’s company, Under Wild Skies Inc., which received millions of dollars from the N.R.A., picked up the tab.

Andrew Arulanandam, the N.R.A.’s managing director of public affairs, said, over e-mail, that the LaPierres’ “activity in Botswana—from more than seven years ago—was legal and fully permitted.” The couple’s safari trips, he added, were meant to “extol the benefits of hunting and promote the brand of the N.R.A. with one of its core audiences.” Moreover, he claimed, “Many of the most notable hunting trophies in question are at the N.R.A. museum or have been donated by the N.R.A. to other public attractions.”

The LaPierres’ effort to keep their taxidermy work secret spanned four months and involved multiple individuals, companies, and countries. On September 27, 2013, the shipping company in Botswana sent its first e-mail to the LaPierres and informed them that the animal parts would be sent to a different company, in Johannesburg, South Africa, before making their way to the United States. “We will be keeping you advised on the progress of this shipment as it moves along these processes,” the message said. In early October, after multiple phone calls with Susan, the American taxidermist wrote to one of the shipping agents involved in the exportation process. He explained that there had been a recent controversy involving Makris, and that the LaPierres “can not afford bad publicity and a out cry.” The taxidermist added, “That is why they are trying not to have there names show up on these shipments so the information does not fall into the wrong hands.” Two months later, the taxidermist checked in with Makris, and asked what he should do with the items once he received them. “W and Susan will tell you how they want theirs mounted,” Makris replied, before reminding the taxidermist that “they said you could handle the import discreetly.” Makris then informed the taxidermist that he would pick up the couple’s tab.

VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKERHow Far Can Abused Women Go to Protect Themselves?

Throughout December, 2013, e-mails show that the taxidermist negotiated with both export companies on the couple’s behalf, with Susan, and also others, copied. “AS requested by the LaPierre’s in a earlier email there name and contact information is to be replaced with my name and contact information,” one note to the Botswana company read. The organization replied that trophies “can only be exported from Botswana in the name of the licensee,” and that “it’s been that way for years, and the export regulations stipulate this.” The taxidermist replied, “This request was only made by Susan and Wayne LaPierre and understand you need to follow the law were applicable.”

The taxidermist then turned his attention to the company in South Africa. On December 10th, the taxidermist told Susan that, once the hunting trophies arrived in Johannesburg, an agent would generate a new air waybill to attach to the shipment and enter the taxidermist’s name on it as the consignee, instead of the LaPierres’. When the trophies arrived in the United States and were cleared through government agencies, it would look as though they belonged to the taxidermist. “Awesome,” Susan replied.

Once the shipping crates landed in Johannesburg, another contact of the taxidermist’s drove two hours to check if the LaPierres’ names were written on the containers. When the friend discovered that they were, he scrubbed them off. In late January, 2014, the taxidermist told Susan that the shipment had arrived. “Looks like everything is here and no protestors,” he wrote.

After Susan killed the elephant in Botswana, video shows, she was fixated on the creature’s feet. As she touched them, she said, “He’s so wrinkly. . . . Wow. A podiatrist would love working on him.” Photographs of the taxidermied appendages show that the animal’s wrinkled gray skin, the light coating of hair, and the massive, cracked toenails are all preserved, and, in the case of the stools, topped with wooden rings and black leather seating pads.

The taxidermist had successfully completed a highly sensitive, laborious project. Two years later, in 2016, he reached out to Susan because he was trying to buy a boat from someone she and Wayne knew, and he hoped that Wayne could connect them. In an e-mail, the taxidermist said it was fine if she could not help, noting that “life will go on.” Still, he asked for the courtesy of a reply, one way or the other. He did not receive one.

Arulanandam, the N.R.A spokesman, alleged that “communications” with the taxidermist stopped after he “appeared to make threats against members of an N.R.A. delegation that participated in the Botswana excursion. He also sought benefits and payments to which he was not entitled.”

The taxidermist wrote a parting e-mail three months later, expressing his frustration at the lack of response. It wasn’t so long ago, he said, that Susan had “begged” him over the phone to remove the LaPierres’ names from their “harvested Elephants” and promised him “ ‘A BIG FAVOR’ ” in return. In case she had forgotten, he reminded her, “you could not afford protesters” and a “media shit storm.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-head-of-the-nra-and-his-wife-secretly-shipped-their-elephant-trophies-home