It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

LILY HUANG NEEDS TO GO BACK TO JOURNALISM SCHOOLAND LEARN HOW TO GET SOME FACTS STRAIGHT!
Big game populations (and many non-game populations because of big game conservation) have only fluorished since Teddy Roosevelt (thanks Teddy!) making animal's more vigorus and healthy!
I am glad to see so many hunters speaking up!
Jeff

There is a record book that records the antler size of animals over the past several decades and it was established by Roosevelt. It is called the Boone and Crocket Club and it was established for just this reason. The records show that animals are actually growing bigger antlers over the past few decades as evident by new world records being set in the past decades. This article tries to make percentage comparisions based on the entire African elephant population and the one small localized population. You can't make comparisions based on these numbers. Actually hunters are the only true conservationisist and they do mamage game animals for there genetics. This article has NO credability. Do your homework...research the data available from the Boone and Crocket Club, Pope and Young Club, and Safari Club International. You will see that this article is incorrect.

For zakk30 - Do you think there are hunting seasons for animals that are endangered? These days, animals do not make the endangered species list because of hunters. Back a hundred+ years ago when there were few, if any, hunting restrictions is when this occured. It is unfortunate, but we have learned from those mistakes.
I don't see a hunting season for the California Condor or Whooping Crane in this years hunting regulations. Do some research before you start typing your nonsense.

There is some truth to this, but blaming hunting for the lack of biodiversity is completely absurd. Hunters attribute all most all of the money for wildlife conservation. Without hunters there would more than likely be little or no wildlife anyway. People that consider themselves green are the type of people that are destroying habitat by moving in the suburbs, and are as responsible as anyone for the decrease in wildlife. I am not an ignorant person in these matters. I have a biology degree, physical science degree, and have spent my life as a hunter, so I have a little back ground in this. One thing that I know to be true, and has been observed and proven on my family farm is that even if all you harvest is trophy bucks, that the offspring from that buck still have the same genes! We still see characteristics of a buck I shot 6 years ago in our trophies today! A immature deer with a small set of antlers posses the same genes whether or not he has a large set of antlers or not. Even if a small or less adequate buck is allowed to breed he may still have the genes to be great, but just needs some time.

Hunting has nothing to do with evolution, whether or not people only hunt for the size of the horn or antler, has little effect on the evolution of animals. There are a few essentials animals need, ( food source, habitat. weather and water).
I have hunted all my life, (not a horn hunter) and have seen what a lack or to much of one of these four issues will do to an animal population. Question, what happens to a species when all the dumb or inferior animals are removed? Answer, The intelligent ones breed intelligence. That is why trophy aanimals are hard to find. Years ago it was not hard to take a 4 or 5 point ( one side) deer. They have learned over time its only safe to move and feed at night or move to a habitat that is less disturbed. Like us they are becoming more intelligent as time moves on!!

If this story were to hold water explain to me why in the last 10-15 years the numbers of record book animals continues to increase. The simple fact of the matter is that evolution is still the driving force in "Bigger is Better" survival. The animals today still reach the same proportions as those of yesteryear, its just that there is fewer of them. This trend has nothing to do with hunting , but everything to do with every red blooded American thinking They deserve that little 2-5 acre patch of Haven and the usable real estate left over for the animal population is rapidily decreasing. Alast ther is hope, great hunter conservation groups are protecting large tracts of land for the animals. So as it turns out, hunters of today are just like the Great Hunters of the past, Teddy, Aldo Leuopold, and Audoboun (founding members of the Boone and Crockett Club), We are the only stewards of the land that wish to see all native populations of animals thrive and increase.

First, poaching elephants with a machine gun to supply some bizarre asian "alternative medicine" demand is not hunting. Second, sawing off the tusks of elephants and the horns of rhinos to protect them from asian-driven poachers does not effect the quality or vitality of the animals' sperm.
Fish populations that are overfished tend to be young and...get ready for a shocker...SMALL. The same holds true for hunting: trophies are mature animals and may be scarce in heavily hunted areas. That does not mean they are genetically inferior, it means they are young! If you want to see genetically inferior animals go to a game preserve where there are no predators, human or otherwise, and no struggle for survival. That is reverse evolution if such a thing exists.
Jon A

Threewolves hs it right on, how much financial help goes to wildlife from antihunting groups. Game management is the key. Take a look at the Kudu in the picture, those are extremely small Kudu by todays standard.

This author should check out the records of Pope and Young or Boone and Crocket. She would find that not only have the sizes of the antlers/horns/skulls gotten larger in the past 20 years, the number of entries has increased. Based on the thesis of this story, this should not be happening.

This is nothing more than anti-hunting dribble.

To Kristonrochen: 1. Obviously, you have never hunted. 2. Obviously, you're an idiot. Name me one, one animal that legal hunting has made an animal extict? Obviously, you don't no the difference between hunting and poaching.

There are several messages posted which hit the nail on the head - this article shows a load of bias and appears to ignore many facts that run counter to the thesis.

However, most posters are obviously hunters and might have their own bias as well.

I am a quantitative geneticist and as a scientist I must throw my support to the hunters! The basic premise of this article is flimsy at best.

The story of elephants is somewhat compelling but it would be wrong to extrapolate this example to Big Game hunting in North America. The situation is totally different. In the case of the elephant populations, the biggest and best animals are being POACHED in an entirely unregulated way, there is extremely high selection pressure, these populations are relatively small and the species have a low reproductive rate. All these situations conspire against the species.

In the case of North American Big Game Species - none of these conditions exist. In addition, the potential impacts of limited carrying capacity, overopopulation, poor population structure, limited natural predation, etc are entirely ignored by the author. It is possible to make a more compelling arguement that deer populations are too large resulting in limited nutritional resources. In addition, there is a large ratio of does relative to bucks resulting from limited doe harvesting and, consequently, there is very limited competition for breeding females allowing young or inferior bucks to reproduce. More hunting, and better herd management, is the solution to this problem rather than the cause of the problem.

As i mentioned at the outset, this article is weak and poorly supported - at worst it represents a bias attempt to promote a particular agenda.

I find this article ignores several facts. One, that hunting is not something new that has only been going on for the last century. Hunting has occured since man has been able to attach a sharpened rock to a stick. I guess the species that are being hunted today must have been two or three times the size they are now several centuries or even millenia ago.

Two, that these larger animals that are being sought after, have years of mating before they themselves become "trophies". So their genes are being passed on.

Looks to me like another attempt to paint hunting in a bad light.

It's obvious that Lily Huang is not a hunter. Yes, every hunter dreams of bagging a huge bull elk or a magnum white tail, but there' s a lot more to it that that. It's the quality time spent afield, memories it creates and stories that are told for generations. I live for the hunting months of Sept - Dec and have for 20 years. But it is not because the only thing I have on my mind is harvesting the largest set of antlers here in WI. I hunt to put meat in the freezer and enjoy the time outdoors. If I happen to shoot a big buck, that's just one more special hunt I will remember forever. I don't think any experienced hunter can agree with much of what the author of this mess wrote.
Just imagine if there were no hunters...animalpopulations would sky rocket, they would run out of food and kill themselves off. That's evolution in reverse.

I understand your article but you have to give Teddy Roosevelt his due,
he systematically preserved over a million acres of land and declared it federal parkland of wich maybe 10% is hunted.
Builders have done more harm with urban sprawl than hunters.
I live in NJ talk about deer herding ,just look on the side of the road to see the ruin of a species...

Somenone needs to get facts straight. In the situations described , a lot of it has to do with game poaching (which is illegal) and not sound game management. In Africa it is a very big problem but with little monetary resource for enforcement , it goes unchecked. But when they do get caught it is severe punishment. In the " states " the punishment has ususally been like " a slap" on the hand. In some states now they have increased the fines and /or jail time to fit the crime and have finally put a $ value on the speicies. The white tail deer population is greater now than it was when the 1st settlers came here , same with coyotes. There are other numerous other success stories because of sound game managemnet. You can blame the "whitemans" greed for land and conquering of the native people for the almost irradication of the bison , not ethical hunters. In areas that game hunting has been stopped or been restricted because of people who don't know anything about wildlife other than "they are cute" get their way in court and then the game aniamals suffer more because of over population and starvation. They don't have a plan , but don't "kill" them , then they get mad because something isnt done about feeding them. It's your idea , you do something about it since you seem to know more than the game biologists and managers.

CHECK

Did anyone question the premise that a reduction in physical size is an "un-evolutionary" adaptation for survival?
Did anyone question the premise that trophy hunting and poaching actually represent main stream hunting?
Having witnessed road-kill frim New York State to the eleven western states, I have to question the data of
the two quoted experts with regard to the scope of their inquiries. I also have to wonder why no professonal
game management biologists were quoted to at least offer some semblance of balance in the discussion.
Modern game management by each state attempts to manage game populations by limiting availability of licenses,
areas hunted, and times and dates for hunting. This "harvesting" if you will, attempts to approximate humans' role
as a top order carnivorous consumer in the food chain(basic ecology).
As a side note, most trophy elk require six to eight years to mature, so should have plenty of opportunity to
procreate in their prime, afterwhich they rapidly decline in health and antler size naturally.
Perhaps dimiihished average size is not a sole determinant of successfull adaptation by a species.

THis is a bunch of bull. The taking of larger antlered game is not killing off the species. That is why hunting regulations are set to give the animals time to breed, which the largest and toughest mainly get first dibs on the females. If trophies racks are taken, the majority is taken after the rut, or mating time, thus their genes are still passes on. The elk population isn't in desparate decline. They have so many in Colorado's National Forest that the vegatation is what is in danger, so they call upon hunters to manage the game.
If you want to help stop killing the animals, quit building houses like their going out of style and quit taking the land thet they need to survive. The money spent for tags and hunting equipment goes toward land conservation and protecting the land that these animals live on.
I'd rather eat wild game anyway instead of the chemical injected store bought meats. And you wonder why everyone is obese and has so many medical problems. Why the kids are fully developed at such a young age, etc. It's the roids and other junk they inject into store bought foods. If you want to see real cruelty go to the slaughter houses and see what toture the animals suffer. Hunters practice to make shots which kill the animal quickly. God made these animals to provide food for us. Guess you got to sue God and disown him.
There are soo many of you that believe anything you read and jump on bandwagons. It's like when you get so many people attacking logging, but live in wood build homes. Go live in a cave, then have something to say. As well to you vegans, do you only buy from farmers who don't allow hunting on their lands? Most do to help stop the destruction of their crops and get the most profit from their crops. There are many that can't afford the high costs of store food as well. I can pay $27 for a deer tag and get $300 worth of meat from a deer, which feeds my family. I also grow my own vegatables which costs less to grow and we can them. This saves us tons of money and helps us to be able to keep our home.
Don't knock stuff until you've studied enough to see both sides of the story.