It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

Hunting large trophy deers means the they don't get to breed. When the left-overs get to breed, you get deer kids who looks like the left-overs. Until it becomes popular to hunt for animals with smaller antlers, you may see a sizable population of deer, but not of ones with really really big antlers. The article wasn't necessarily attacking hunters, just pointing out the obvious.

I am a hunter by instinct. I enter into the wild places with honor and integrity at the forefront of every wilderness experience, most hunters are no killers.Through selective harvest we will ensure the future of our sport as well as a future for the animals we hunt.. If there is a decline in the number of animals in any given area HUNTERS are the first to stop the harvests and do whatever is needed to ensure the survival of any species.When did the animal rights factions decide that huners were the enemy instead of a valid ally in this fight to keep our wild creatures and places ? HAWK

you obviously have not taken a good look at hunting in America today. There is a mulitimillion dollar industry that is solely built on wildlife management. The deer heards in the South are healthier today than ever before due to wldlife management, We can not help what goes on in Africa and other countries. That is what is wrong with our economy today, We as Americans worry more about Africa and other countries and forget about our own. If you knew anything about hunters then you know that we will take care of the wildlife. The wild is our way of life.

I would think that you have never hunted before in your life. You have no idea what you are taliking about. You eliminate hunting and fishing and the with the suburbs now extending into the wildlife areas, where are the animals to go. They will start staving and becoming diseased and then you will complain that the government need to feed the wildlife. Well friend at least currently the hunters are doing that.

Upon reading some of your comments below, I don't think that many of you actually read the article. This article simply reports that there COULD POSSIBLY be a link between hunting and survival of the fittest. It does not say that this is the case for all animals. It points out specifially which animals would be most affected by this phenomenon. It states the evidence and says plainly that there are flaws in this evidence and that no conclusive findings have been found, but that it is worth looking into in the future.

Also, I am an animal lover who lives in Central PA and works with many hunters. I have talked with them and understand their points of view. It seems that the same respect should be given to other animal lovers.

I think you need to do a little more research. Your theory certainly could have held water in the 1800's when white men senselessly killed Bison and left them to rot. Had there not been men with the forethought of Teddy Roosevelt I dread to think what would have happened. Ethical hunters who considered themselves conservationists in 1909 are a far cry from those you see today. And it sounds like you have never tried to draw a tag in Montana or even hunt Elk in Montana. Pick up the most recent hunting regulations, for that matter any copy from the last 2 decades will do. You'll find State Wildlife Departments do more than "count heads" when deciding how many tags to issue. If you do have a tag you are only allowed to take certain types of elk in certain areas. Those regulations are based on statistics they gather to determine what is best for the population of all animals in each region. You also don't give enough credit to the local hunters. We live there. We watch these animals all year long, for years at a time. We don't just try to shoot the biggest animal we can find. We try to select animals that are certain sex, age, size, etc. We try to make sure that good quality animals have had plenty of years to breed before they are taken. We choose based on what is best to manage the area we love to be in so our grandchildren will get just as much enjoyment from the same area years from now. The only hunters I know of that fall into your definition of "hunters" is stupid out of state city slickers that have no connection to our land and care what the consequence of their actions will be.

Go read more books, and make more studies. Most wildlife's "antlers" or "horns" have nothing to do with the "genetic sizing" of the animal, but rather the age and/or diet. The most hunted anmial (white tail deer) for instance, looses it's antlers every year, and even the size of the anterels is due directly to diet, not it's genetic superiority within it's species.
As for the Ram - whose to say that the 4-year old ram that was shot is better than the 3-year old? This article is nothing more than screen fodder. A waste of reading time.

One last point for all the anti-hunters; I presume that many of you don't know any hunters. If you are truly passionate about protecting animals, you owe it to yourself to find a hunter and to let them buy you a cup of coffee and explain to you the passion that hunters feel for the outdoors and for protecting (yes, PROTECTING) animals so that future generations will have the opportunity to enjoy seeing them in the wild rather than urban zoos. 98% of hunters are good, intelligent people who would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this rationally rather than have both sides hurl insults back and forth. Give them a chance, you may be surprised what you learn.

this is yet another unfortunate, ill-informed attempt by the media to point fingers at hunters. But as "veggie_head" correctly points out, it has been proven time and again that in the absence of a game control strategy, such as when hunting is outlawed, the animals become decimated by disease. We can't simultaneously continue to encroach upon the anaimals' territory, kill off the natural predators such as wolves and mountain lions, then expect the game animals to "naturally" reduce their numbers on their own rather than overpopulate their limited territories. New Jersey has blown this time and again, both with deer populations and now with black bears, who are increasingly moving into the suburban sprawl in search of food because their populations are essentially uncontrolled.

This "report" is another example of poor journalism. Where is the reporting defending the other side, the role of hunting in game management? How can the writer compare illegal poaching of kangaroos and elephants to the controlled, regulated hunting that occurs here in the US and Canada? "researchers' alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove." But they are incendiary enough to warrant a half-baked article such as this one. Not only should the writer be ashamed, the editor who let this populist drivel get published without fair and accurate standards for reporting should be fired.

Michael McMahon

well. man has been hunting since the beginning of time...why all these big animals still here? i have hunted over the past 30 years and the white tail deer in mississippi are bigger than ever and there is more of them...this artical is very lame and has no basis in reality...actually the hunters are the reason the animal populations are healthy!

Wow! disgusting to feed the hoeless.

I have a game management ranch, and this is the most ridiculuos ,outlandish, and most far fetched
article ever, We hunt and kill many deer every year, still we have some of the best hunts year after year and the deer get bigger and the horns get wider. We also kill off many deer that feed the homeless. Where do they find the people that write these articles.

libnighmare.... I think I sense a little sarcasm in your comment. But as you call Newsweek "the leader in scientific research", can you tell me on what study or research your comment is based?

Gee; we have been doing this to ourselves for thousands of years with war!

I wonder if the horns on Ram mountain are 25% smaller because the researcher has been harassing the animals for the last 25 years. I wonder if any of the geniuses responsible for this article realize that the elk herd in the West was nearly wiped out by market hunting in the 1800s. That's right they would hunt and bring the meat to market.

For example, elk hunting of any type was banned in Colorado from 1908 to 1938. There were no elk in Colorado. This was done by hunters for hunters. Habitat preservation and herd management is paid for by hunters. Environmentalists have fought an excise tax on outdoor gear for years, but if I buy a gun or a bow, I pay for habitat preservation.

Any geniuses realize that the size of the horns typically reflect age and that an elk with a huge rack is the oldest elk around and probably has breed for YEARS before he was killed.

Crappy writer, crappy editor, crappy science. The stupid burns.

Another clever attempt to force the views of PETA and the like down our throats.