It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

This author might want to check the records of Pope and Young or Boone and Crocket.. She would find that in most cases not only have the size of the antlers/horns/skull size gotten bigger over the past 20 years, the number of entries has increased. This is nother more than anti-hunting dribble.

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.

When the conditions favor the weak, what you'll get is the weak breeding. The planet as a whole is heading this way. I know it's a bit of a dumb movie, but Idiocracy really shows what the world is heading for. Whether we're leaving the weak animals alone, or coddling the losers in society....we're changing the way that things have been done on this planet for millions of years. (Or at least for four thousand years if you don't believe in evolution.)

When I saw the topic "Evolution in Reverse", I was expecting a discussion about people. It seems to me that the more educated people tend to have one or two children. While those living on welfare, food stamps, etc. tend to have many many children. comments?

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.

When the conditions favor the weak, what you'll get is the weak breeding. The planet as a whole is heading this way. I know it's a bit of a dumb movie, but Idiocracy really shows what the world is heading for. Whether we're leaving the weak animals alone, or coddling the losers in society....we're changing the way that things have been done on this planet for millions of years. (Or at least for four thousand years if you don't believe in evolution.)

When I saw the topic "Evolution in Reverse", I was expecting a discussion about people. It seems the more educated people have one or two children while those on food stamps, welfare, and other government services tend to have many children.

Evolution in reverse? How so? No evolution is occurring at all in these situations. Many folks continue to get natural (or artificial) selection confused with evolution. The two are not synonymous. If a transition from one higher taxon to another can be documented, then we have a potential example of evolution. If all we see is intrageneric variation driven by predation (hunting), it's rather pointless to speak of evolution occurring. Relevant questions to ask, for example, might be 'Can this process be reasonably extrapolated to explain the emergence of ungulates from non-ungulates'? Or, 'Can this explain the transition from plantigrade mammals to digitigrade mammals'? Or, 'Does this reveal how mammals evolved from reptiles'? (This last is, of course, improper because the two groups are actually supraspecific, but I am attempting to illlustrate the types of inquiries possible).

When phrased this way, I don't believe the question can be answered affirmatively from within currently held orthodoxy.

Looks like the research is pretty a one sided attack on hunting. Because of hunting previous over hunted species have rebounded. This is because of modern wildlife management regulations to control how and when hunting is conducted. Check the facts there are more and elk and deer in North America than 50 years ago. Check the facts because of modern management the big racks are being taken every year just check the record books.

If there are too many doe deer or cow elk in a given range wildlife managers make adjustments to allow the excess animals to be hunted. If there is a severe winter kill adjustments are made to reduce the number of animals taken. Most rifle hunts are conducted after the mating season to allow the genes to be passed on. The article does not mention that.

There are more elephants now than 50 years ago. In some areas they have expanded to the point of becoming a nuisance, this was mostly from over protection. And maybe, just maybe the tusk length issue was not from hunting, but from poaching. A hunter might want the tucks, but the rest of the world, not the hunter wants the ivory. Be careful blaming this on the hunter.

As for Ram Mountain, the wildlife manager needs to make some changes for that area. It maybe it is an environmental issue, maybe slowly over browsing their range or a plant that was important to their growth has slowly disappeared over the years.

The biggest threat to wildlife is not hunting, it is loss of habitat. Some people just refuse to acknowledge it. If you have habitat you can have animals and hunting. If you do not have habitat you will not have animals, it is that simple.

The earth, the animals are here for our use or misuse. That is how it works; man is part of nature not separate from nature. The paragraph about why this would be hard to prove is why the total picture of modern wildlife management should be looked at, because with elk and deer it is not as the article portrays. Paul Anderson

Evolution cannot run in reverse because there is no forward or backward to it!!!!

Evolution is a species reaction to change in the enviroment which will lead to a new species having functions that are more favorable to survival. If that means smaller antlers/racks, then that's evolution continuing, not changing course because there is no defined direction or end point.

This article appears as though some high school kid threw it together at the last minute so she would at least have something to turn in on Monday morning. Anyone can "cherry pick" opinions from others and make up an article. Why wasn't Safari Club International consulted since she is feels there is decline of record book animals? They maintain THE trophy animal record books. What is their opinion?

I love the outdoors, and hunting and fishing is a wonderful family tradition. Living on the west coast I've had the opportunity to salmon fish in the summers and hunt deer in the fall. I agree that the number of "trophy" animals is on the decline. You look at some of the old deer camp pictures from 50 years ago and every rack looks like a Boone & Crockett size animal. It may be hard to prove the theories in the article, but it really makes a lot of sense. The genetics of the animals that we dream about have been largely removed from the breeding population. Sure, you see that monster buck or bull in the magazine every so often, but if regulation had been done right 100 years ago and in the present we would see that more often. I know somebody mentioned the whitetail management, which has made leaps and bounds in the past 20 years, the things are like rabbits! But I don't think these methods can be applied to high mountain and more free roaming animals like sheep, mule deer, and elk. Unfortunetly, I think regulation can only save those trophy animals. And as much as I would hate tighter regulations, if it means the rebound of a species for my children, I'll take the hit for it.

This article also speaks of the size of salmon, the Kenai River in Alaska is a prime example. Catching 70 and 80 lb. fish used to be common, now its front page news. You take out those genetics and that size of fish will cease to exist. Some don't want to catch and release, but again, if that means the continued existence of the species or rebound of the "monster" fish, then I'm all for it. Commercial fishing also needs to have improved practices and regulations.

I love hunting and fishing, I never want to stop doing it, and I want my children's children to be able to have the experiences that I did. Hunters and fishermen bring in a lot of money to improve many things, and I'm willing to bet the money doesn't always come back to us, so we do bring a lot of revenue to our states. "cboysfain1" also brought up the number of hunters out there, non-hunters must realize and understand that we are not always succesful in our quest, in fact, we are very much on the losing side most of the time. Thats why is called hunting and fishing, not "catching".

I think we should be more concerned with the reverse evolution taking place within the human race! Those who should be reproducing are not, and the ones who would normally have died off in the past are popping them out like rabbits.
PS: The removal of habitat by the yuppie speculators who just finished destroying our economy has cause more permanent reduction in wild life than hunters ever could. Built a summer home in the mountains lately? How about the new mall? Oh my goodness, animals can't live there! Oh my goodness evolution is being harmed!

I agree with Artmark. This is not about hunting for sport. These are just plain and simple facts!
If we want to start talking about illeagal hunting then we touch on other issues, such as endagered speices.
They are endangered for a reason, OVER hunting, over population, deforestation, oh and did I mention OVER and ILLEAGAL hunting. This article is not a hunting bashing artice its just facts and opinions. Get over it all you guntoting, pro-gun, and real sport hunters. We are not trying to take your guns away...................yet.:)

Looks like the research is pretty a one sided attack on hunting. Because of hunting previous over hunted species have rebounded. This is because of modern wildlife management regulations to control how and when hunting is conducted. Check the facts there are more and elk and deer in North America than 50 years ago. Check the facts because of modern management the big racks are being taken every year just check the record books.

If there are too many doe deer or cow elk in a given range wildlife managers make adjustments to allow the excess animals to be hunted. If there is a severe winter kill adjustments are made to reduce the number of animals taken. Most rifle hunts are conducted after the mating season to allow the genes to be passed on. The article does not mention that.

There are more elephants now than 50 years ago. In some areas they have expanded to the point of becoming a nuisance, this was mostly from over protection. And maybe, just maybe the tusk length issue was not from hunting, but from poaching. A hunter might want the tucks, but the rest of the world, not the hunter wants the ivory. Be careful blaming this on the hunter.

As for Ram Mountain, the wildlife manager needs to make some changes for that area. It maybe it is an environmental issue, maybe slowly over browsing their range or a plant that was important to their growth has slowly disappeared over the years.

The biggest threat to wildlife is not hunting, it is loss of habitat. Some people just refuse to acknowledge it. If you have habitat you can have animals and hunting. If you do not have habitat you will not have animals, it is that simple.

The earth, the animals are here for our use or misuse. That is how it works; man is part of nature not separate from nature. The paragraph about why this would be hard to prove is why the total picture of modern wildlife management should be looked at, because with elk and deer it is not as the article portrays. Paul Anderson

Trophy hunting means that you are selective. You don't go shooting the first half grown bull that walks in front of you. How can managing herds be narrowing the gene pool? Most trophy animals require time to reach their peak size, but often they are only that large for a short time before age begins to take its toll. Is cruelty allowing those animals to suffer, or taking their lives? Elk and Deer are not endangered species. The herds have been larger and healthier these past few years more then ever before. So, this article is about evolution? It sure seems more like a liberal stab at hunters.

I would just add to the two responses below, that in the United States each States manage Big, Small Game and Fish to the best of their ability. They base that on carrying capacity of each states food, shelter and water for each species. You should note that each species is most hunted after or during breeding to give the genetics the best chance to be carried forward.

Know I would sure like to see the third world counties manage their resources including Big, Small Game as Fish as well as the US, but I think they have enough other issues to focus on like aids, starvation and loss of habitat to name just a few.

While your thesis may be correct in regard to the bighorn sheep and elephants, it's certainly not true in the case of Elk. The Boone and Crockett world record elk was taken in Central Utah this year. And there are more Elk than there have ever been. When I was a kid in the 1960's I only saw one elk in all my mountain treking. The Utah herd numbered under 5000. Today Elk are plentiful, with the herd now north of 100,000 in Utah alone. One of our biggest problems is avoiding Elk on the roadways rather than never, every seeing them like when I was a kid. The real secret is herd management and stopping overkilling the populations by poachers. Perhaps if we had an open season on poachers they would suffer a reverse evolution themselves.

Steve Clark
Chester, UT