It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

Sometimes I wonder what the effects are of the game populations being abnormally healthy and how that might influence their development as a species. Unmanaged game populations or game herds threatened by high wolf populations have less time to feed, choose poorer terrain become sick and spread disease. Where game populations are managed, disease is less common. In fact hunters are better at managing game diseases like CWD than the rest of us are at managing swine flu.

THis is definitely a lame article meant to try yet another end aound to the second amendment. "Those big bad hunters are ruining evolution! They must be stopped!" Expect similar idea's being 'run up the flag pole' in hopes that one of them will stick. These bozo's clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about.

The assumtion that all or even the majority of regular hunters are hunting only trophy animals is absurd. I personally don't know anyone who does. The people you usually see hunting on TV can afford to spend several weeksor months in the field every year and pay big money to search for trophy game - often under controlled conditions. It may make good TV, but these people are the exception, not the rule. Most of us are luicky to get a few hours on the weekend and won't pass up venison because the antlers aren't pretty enough (that's if the deer even has antlers!)

It seems Newsweek might be publishing a retraction? Some meatheads (like me) said this was uninformed propaganda, but some heavy erudite knowledgeable PhDs said you've been had. So, this is not politics, it's biology! Be a man! Publish a retraction as big as the story, and can Lily!

The trophy ones were rare then and they're rare now. That's why they're called trophy's! And besides, in many venues where the 'endangered' animals are like vermin and have even learned to avoid cars while they cross the road to eat my roses after turning my neighbor's garden into a desert, the state makes you not take trophys; you get to take mundane animals.

In well-managed hunting preserves, the opposite effect is noted. Since the bigger animals are the most desirable to hunt, a properly managed hunting preserve tends to cull inferior specimens, eg those of unusually small size or with small antlers and limit hunting of the better specimens until after they have contributed to the genetic pool, ie they are off-limits until they reach an age where they past or nearly past their reproductive best. Over time in such preserves the animals get bigger and better. The biggest threat to animal populations is not hunting but agriculture as farmers don't tend to share their crops well with wild grazing animals like deer.

hunting regulates the population of the animals over populating can lead to a point where there is insufficient food for the animals thus it needs to be regulated. A bigger problem is the fact that there are too many people getting in the animals habitat. open season on lawyers, polititions, and stupid reporters and we could regulate that too. And how do we get record trophy game still today if there is a shrinkage of game?

I partially agree with this article.. I am an avid hunter and I am also a Hunter education instructor in the state which I live. I personally believe it is unethical to hunt for trophy purposes. We should learn from the Indians, who hunted fo food, and used all the parts of the animal. It was not about trophy or who got the biggest animal, it was about surviving. Modern hunters now are more interested in feeding their ego's and pride rather then the freezer. I have heard the arguement about how a older buck, lets say a 10 pointer, is smarter then a younger buck - this may be true. With age comes wisdom and knowledge. But that 10 point buck would not be any smarter then a doe of the same age. If both animals stood in front of you - which would you shoot and why? Most hunters would shoot the 10 point buck - why?, for bragging rights.

So how does a person combat falsifications and out and out lies. TRUTH. It appears Newsweek has become part of this game,(spreading false news to influence the uninformed),Jan 3, 2009.
Lily Huang a newsweek reporter gave what Lily Huang thought would be the most interesting and compelling story that reporter fealt would influence those around her. All of this story



"PROJECT GREEN



It???s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny"

was a complete lie showwing the deliberate attempt to influence those who trust the media and it's sources. And the magazine,"Newsweek" published this story without even verifying that reporters souces. Or worse yet they just gently looked away as the rollers began to print.
The proper thing would have been to stop the presses and get rid of the lies they were printing and repremand the reporter responsible, they chose to just trust. That was nice wasn't it. Yet, is it compliant of credibility or the law?
Well, Mr. Newsweek boardmember and publisher how dare you lie to the American public! Maybe your changing your reliablility factors into some sort of entertainment only news such as the martians are attacking us along with batboy at the pilot seat in the war weekly news.
I tell ya how to combat liars compare thier credibility with the sources they claim.
If it smells like spoiled meat it usually is.
There was a time this gun grasping, hunt loving, fish getting, hard working American had a subscription to Newsweek because they seemed reliable but those days are gone. by almost 15 years now. The stories I read were not matching statistics and factual accounts then. So if I can't trust something I rid myself of it. And thats just what I did.
I began reading other newsarticles and found my suspitions to be true.
So to simply answer the question at hand how do you combat false articles such as this, truth. You can't argue against fact!

Unfortunately this whole article was a lie just read,"USSA Combats False Impression Left by Newsweek Hunting Story" in the Buckeye Firearms Association. So any further arguements hold no grounds!

Unfortunately this who article was a lie just read,"USSA Combats False Impression Left by Newsweek Hunting Story" in the Buckeye Firearms Association. So any further arguements hold no grounds!

leoal

Change you can believe in?
No article on the perils of trophy hunting is complete without reporting about the African elephant populations purported to be evolving to be tuskless. In 1969 and 1972 surveys revealed 10-12% of the females were without tusks, but then when surveyed again 1988-93, the estimate was 28-38%. They surmised (without data) the change was due to heavy ivory poaching. The problem with this argument is there was no monitoring between the 2 early years and the later period and no evidence for cause and effect. Even the original paper concedes that the proportion of the population without tusks changed with movements of elephant groups on and off the study area.

To continually warn about the dangers of trophy hunting based on exceptional cases (and illegal poaching!) and a few poorly supported anecdotes takes significant ignorance or bias ??? neither of which is flattering for a scientist or writer.