It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

if a loser is adapting to your environment then all species that r still hear r losers including us.

i don't think they r losers because they r adapting if they don't adapt they will die out

This is written by someone that doesn"t know what they are writing about. If you did some research you would find out this is based on untrue facts.

Even if some of you do not agree with hunting, I have not put you down, nor resorted to name calling. I respect you for your beliefs, why can't you respect my beliefs?
Everything that men and women wear, clothing, shoes, house hold items come from animals, farming, mining etc...
I understand that you may not enjoy getting your hands bloody by hunting, but someone did get their hands bloody for your shoes, your Luis Vuiton handbag, your belt, your wallet, your coat, etc.....
I hunt for the meat mainly, if I should come upon a a big buck or a big bear, that is just icing on the cake for me.
Do you realize that game populations are at an all time high? Hunters dollars are taxed to provide habitat for game species, and game dollars also buy big tracts of land to keep them from being developed by land developers.
Thats right, if you don't believe me check with the DNR of your state you live in, in fact check all the states of the union if you don't believe me! Hunters do more to protect the animals and the their habitat than non-hunters! Read it for yourself check with the DNR of your state!!!

I THINK YOU ARE WRONG, I AM A AVID HUNTER AND BELIEVE THAT IF YOU LET THE GAME MANAGMENT PROGRAMS DO THERE JOBS WITHOUT HASLE FROM YOU PEOPLE THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS. TAKE A LOOK AT THE WAY IDAHO MANAGES THERE WILDLIFE AND YOU WILL SEE A VERY WELL MANAGED PROGRAM. IF YOU DONT TAKE CARE OF THE WOLF PROLEM THERE WIL BE NO GAME FOR YOU PEOPLE TO WORRY ABOUT.

SAY NO TO HUNTING!!!

SAY NO TO HUNTING!

I do not agree that trophy hunting is barbaric. Dead is dead regardless of the size of the rack.
I suspect that most who oppose cannot afford to trophy hunt or have never been around hunting at all. Real hunters have their ethics and are not cruel. I would rather have a serious hunter with expert skills out hunting than some redneck bouncing around in a pick up on the logging roads. There is a difference.
All you animal lovers out there I have one question for you. What are you going to do with all these animals? We are encroaching on their environment. I suppose some believe that it is kinder to let them starve.
Harsh winter tough on elk herd in Mount St. Helens Wildlife Area
Posted by The Associated Press May 10, 2008 21:55PM
Associated Press/File/2006Elk cross a dry riverbed in the Mount St. Helens Wildlife Area, which hugs the valley along the north fork of the Toutle River, in May 2006.
It was a tough winter for the elk herd in the Mount St. Helens Wildlife Area.
About 150 elk died of malnutrition and causes related to the snow and cold that extended into April, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department reported recently. The winter kill was the largest recorded in the area since 1999, when 79 elk died.
Concerned about the hard winter, wildlife managers distributed 131 tons of hay to elk that congregated in the Toutle River Valley near the volcano.
That was a stopgap measure, said Sandra Jonker, regional wildlife program manager, and officials hope to reduce elk deaths by bringing the size of the herd in line with the available natural forage.
-- The Associated Press

Jpleute got it right. Has anybody seen Idiocracy? Perfectly illistrates the dumbing down effect in human nature. Studies show people with an IQ over 160 have on average 0.8 children. People with an IQ under 100 average EIGHT offspring. Human intelligence is an endangered species.

The reporter confuses evolution with selection. Selection can be natural or artificial. Artificial selection is what happens when a farmer breeds cows for more milk production or a dog breeder selects for the traits that make a domestic canine more attractivie. The hunter artificially selects the bigger trophies to kill and potentially takes them out of the gene pool if they haven't already donated their genes to offspring. Evolution then may favor smaller animals that might become smaller species given enough time. But evolution is not "reversed"; it's simply the process that produces the species more likely to survive in given conditions.

Here are some factual statistics on hunting: 12.5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $23 billion
with much of the revenue from hunting license sales returned to the states for use in wildlife conservation programs. This is money that would come out of your pocket if there was no hunting. Less than .05% of hunters are "professional" hunters. It is a little ridiculous to claim that the .05% of hunters are causing game animals to become extinct. As a lifelong hunter, I have never hunted for "horns" or "antlers". I hunt because I enjoy the outdoors and prefer to eat wild game. Every animal I take is a trophy. The majority of my fellow hunters hunt for the same reasons. The statement that "hunters do not want to take females and males with inferior genetics" is absolutely false. The majority of whitetail deer killed in the United States are female. Responsible hunters understand the need to take females. It is a basic fundamental of wildlife conservation. This is typical anti-hunting rhetoric evidenced by the "researchers' alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove". I guess it's par for the course that Newsweek would print this garbage.

I agree, the same thing is happening in human society.

Wow, could the same thing be happening in human society?

Cocoa10 and whenbord, you clearly didn't understand the article. READ AGAIN. They're NOT saying that there aren't record/trophy animals out there, but that they're getting increasingly harder to find. This could have serious consequences.

The human race is in a state of reverse evolution. Working people are having fewer children while being foreced to pay to support lazy welfare receipents kids. They don't work so they have time to have lots of kids... down we go.

This article was obviously written by someone who is not versed in hunting. It's a shame, because if thorough research had been done, maybe you could have written about how ethical hunting actually helps to improve an animal herd. Or maybe you would have learned that a 'trophy' whitetail deer, for example, does not expand his genetic bloodline by breeding a 'herd' of doe each year, but will instead breed only one or two doe in a breeding season. The problems lie with the management - the states themselve which issue the hunting licenses each year. More licenses sold means more income to the state. Unfortunately, that is their main concern. The politicians don't stop to think about whether or not the animals herds suffered a rough winter the year before, so maybe they should cut back on the licences. There are good points to be made, but finger pointing at hunters is not the answer. The animal herds would be far worse off if they weren't hunted. They would still face not only the same issues that they do now, but a long list of others including over population and declining food sources. So please, don't try to make hunters look like the evil culprits here. It's so easy for non-hunters to finger-point and pass judgement on our lifestyles while they sit at their dinner tables and eat steak, pork or fish. I would be willing to bet that the meat in my freezer was killed more ethically and is far healthier than anything you'll find in a grocery store - but nobody wants to talk about those factory farms. If you don't have the stomach for it - that is fine - but don't pass judgement on those of us who do - especially in such a public forum.

This is poor journalism, irresponsible even, and reports bad science. Ms. Huang's subtitle refers to 'hunters', yet the circumstances she notes are the result of poaching (twice), commercial fishing, and poor game management practices. Most telling and accurate is her statement beginning the third paragraph, " When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival..." Yet she only notes the situation on Ram Mountain. So we are to generalize from a sample of one? Using this process, all reporters are as inept as Ms. Huang. Here are some known facts: overpopulation generates more inferior animals, most hunters do not harvest trophy animals, rather 'average' animals are the norm, 30% of hunting license holders actually harvest deer, there is a precipitous decline in hunting license sales. So if, as Ms. Huang notes so accurately, the 'alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove', why is the article titled as if it were fact? And why is the scarcity of data and veracity of the conclusions not questioned and noted on the next to last paragraph? Even a newbie journalist knows most people won't read that far and will have formed their opinion in the first few paragraphs. Ms. Huang had an agenda, and found a way to make the 'facts' fit it. This is Newsweek??