It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

Anyway, that just proves you can, for a steep price ,be guaranteed a trophy of snouts, antlers and fur to be proudly displayed on your living room and den mantles and walls. Believe me when I say he wouldn't go unless he absolutely knew he would come back with a trophy. Is that what professional hunters provide? Seriously, educate me!

This is a "wake up people" comment. My idea is the same as the research has ruled....kill off the largest and most
majestic of the Herd, and yes, it won't be too easy to spot it in maybe our lifetime--but the future of the Herd.? Who
could ever subscribe to taking the largest of trophy wall hangings and think that it would not harm the entire system.
In this case, the Big Guys seldom are losers and end up with the most girlfriends. The Genes stay where they belong...not in a Den in someones basement. I deplore the fact that the Mexican Govt. for instance lets Trophy hunters seek out the Double Curl Kings of the Baja Central Desert and over the years I have made it known to the Hunting Peers. Hunting is not a bad thing in my book, but when the hunt is not even related to going for the meat then I find it deplorable. I was a private Pilot for many years and made a point of checking out those Great Rams of the Baja herd and in my 25 years of looking for the Big ones, I personally noted one thing that was becoming obvious....they were getting smaller and fewer as time went along. Darwin was right...the fittist shall survive but the hunt goes on.

The argument is flawed because the 'monster bucks' or trophy animals have been breeding and creating progeny with their genetics for several seasons before they reach their extreme size.

Hunting for trophies is an abomination. No matter how you dress it up, the people who hunt for prizes are deplorable and example of just how far the human race has not advanced.

Once again, an article that could be used to inform and shape the way we do things is being used as a platform to sensationalize. I guess that sells more magazines. I'm disappointed by the way that the author uses this as a rally cry against all hunting instead of an article to inform and educate. There is a difference between hunting the varied species with regards to whether it is more of a depredation hunt or a species hunted soley for "trophy" value. Those types of hunts can and are regulated with regards to size and numbers. Where tightly regulated, size is quickly restored in a matter of a few years. The author fails to mention that evolution is a process that takes eons and the genes of those species still contain the DNA to produce the larger sizes and other characteristics of the species. I wish that the journalists of today would realize that sensationalism polarizes while education and information mobilizes. I have found that the most ACTIVE environmentalists are the hunters and fishers who prize those species and the wonderful gifts of nature. They contribute millions and millions each year to habitat and species recovery. I do not know one that wouldn't support tighter regulation and limits to avoid a problem like this. In fact, over the last two or three decades, there has been a dramatic shift in regulations regarding the hunting of all species that regulates this very thing and "trophy" animals are not uncomment in most habitats. That being said, I think there is also a difference between how hunting can and is regulated on the North American continent and those hunts in other parts of the world where corruption and poaching is rampant. I think the author's citation of one prominent North American "trophy" species in one specific area cannot be used as a case to "blanket" all hunting in North America. The mention of ocean based fisheries is not really a "hunting" issue either but one of commercial fisheries, poaching, and international treaties. To sum it all up, this is a poorly conceived and written article where an author, with less than full insight, uses a few facts and one or two narrowly focused citations to sensationalize a very complex issue.

This is an amazing article, so well written, Oh wait this is Newsweek, my bad, I thought I was reading Comedy Central. Thankfully reading the posts it seems that there are still some intelligent specimens of the human race left out there., like Detectiv, TicklePig and Delonix.

The one that is a fine example of the left leaning, do as I say not as I do twisted comment is chris s.

FYI: I eat very little meat and do not, by any means ,support factory-farmed meat or any other animal abuse.

What I what to know chris s, where the hell did your meat that you do eat come from?

As I sit here wasting my time typing this and loathing the mindless drones that have reproduced to effectively enough that have learned to type and post a what seems to them a provocative thought, I am thankful to live 32 miles from the nearest paved road and 45 miles from the nearest grocery store. Out here we live off solar, wind and our only source of news, liberal as it is or communication is satellite. We have watched the local wildlife for years and have enjoyed our hunts when lucky enough to be picked. We hunt, fish and grow what we need and neither are we poor as one poster stated.

No, we are not in some back county area of the deep south but in Northern Arizona. The hunters that come to our area are a mix of good and bad, but that is the same in every part of humanity. The majestic elk bucks that cross our ranch come back each year and it makes you wonder how they stay out of the hunters path. We have Mexican Gray Wolves, Coyote, Mountain Lion, Bob Cat and Black Bear. We always travel with a weapon because the Wolves and Coyote are always trying to get at my Sheppard???s. I find its easer to deal with mother nature and the wildlife she displays than the neighborhoods of Washington DC.

Hunters have a place in this grand illusion of life just as the P.E.T.A people do but when the stuff hit???s the fan and you are hungry I hope you have at least one hunter that you have not offended left to help you eat.

One thing I am surprised at is that the story could have mixed Global Warming/Cooling/Change with the big bad hunter and nailed two birds with one stone! Slipped on that one Newsweek!

Puffling, Your post was the funniest of all and over the years of talking to hunters in our neck of the woods its note worthy to point out that there have been some really intelligent, hot looking women hunting up here. Yea Baby!

The one thing I do look forward to with our liberal society of today, it is that we are still waiting for the first Toyota Prius with the Obama bumper sticker to make the 32 mile dirt road trek and preach to me how I am killing the planet and we must share the wealth????????????.We are safe for now because there is no StarBucks within 70 miles.

I would have liked a chance to hunt the Wooly Mammoth, but what caused their extinction???.. hunters? Oh that???s right Climate Change, caused by what? Humans?

c1ee: Hunting is fine with me - i'm saying that why would newsWEAK entertain an idea that hunting leaves only the weak animals when I see all kinds of trophy deer, etc in our great country and in federally protected lands! In fcat I have to feed the porr, hungry deer overwhelming the Chicago area forest preserves that are every two years beign KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT doe to over population and compaints by Joe Suburban over their plants being eaten - talk about a waste of tax dollars :)

BY the way, YES I do fear GOD and believe that Jesus is LORD and created all the animals and humans ! IN GOD WE TRUST is no mistake - ever know of another human being like Jesus who died, raised 3 days later w/o human intervention AND did so while claiming to be GOD and worked so many miracles?

I am not one to enter into the discussion or rather argument concerning the hunt. However there needs to be something said about the impact of hunters on the game they manage and harvest. First of all without proper game management through hunting many of the species talked about would have been extinct generations ago. Second of all without hunting most big game in this world would be starving to death because of human encroachment on their natural habitat. through harvest most species actually thrive on their new home ranges.Elk, deer and antelope along with big horn sheep are in higher numbers than ever in the US because of the efforts of hunters as well as environmental groups working toward a better tomorrow. Ignorance of the facts usually allows for a bios opinion concerning such matters.. just my two cents worth, hope to shed some light on the true nature of this controversy. To often we stand on both sides of the fence and point the finger instead of offering a helping hand to better our natural world... HAWK

This is another attempt by the mainstream media to get rid of an American past time because it is no longer politically correct. As usual the facts are twisted and untrue in many instances. For example, you dont net Northrn Pike. It also does not mention other species that are thriving. Each year the Whitetail deer has produced more and more record size deer. I think that hunters could also be blamed for the melting of the polar ice caps, just give the media time to find the reason.

The health care system does the same thing to humans.

Now what?

I have not heard of netting for Northern Pike other than for research or "pest" control purposes. In most cases it is illegal to net Nothern Pike since they are considered a game fish. I wonder how netting is causing Northern Pike to propogate in minature. I would imagine that it may be possible for other species but I question the validity of this reference. Additionally, wildlife managers in all states take into account the population density of each hunted species and allow for the taking of both males with certain antler sizes and females if necessary to control population size.

"you end up leaving essentially a bunch of losers doing the breeding." sounds like what has happened to the human race. That's how we got George Bush.

I find it hard to believe that acedemics, or scientists, back this view. The articles first and major flaw completely discredits its attempt as a viable viewpoint. The statement that 'problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense' would only have credence if eveolution was guided by intelligence or a thinking entity. It smacks of creationism heavily disguised as science. Evolution by its very definitioon is a blind and naturaly occuring process guided only by sucess and failure. There is no organization, or sense, behind evolution or else Mother Nature would by default be God. It is a sightless, nuetral, and merciless process where trial and error are its only tools. Eat or be eaten, does that make sense? Only if you embrace the fact that evolution is a naturaly occuring process for all life. The same rules and boundaries exist for a bactirium as they do for a homo-sapient. Sometimes the bacteria wins. Does that make sense?

Eventually, men that still need to prove their worth/masculinity/value/place in the world/whatever by the completely unnecessary and (self)destructive act of hunting will themselves evolve away. The justifications from these guys for why they hunt is a humorous study on the malformed male ego. The question is, will the evolution of the male homo sapiens happen fast enough to preserve enough diversity on our small planet. The odds are against us my friends. Enjoy the wild while you still can.

Eventually, men that still need to prove their worth/masculinity/value/place in the world/whatever by the completely unnecessary and (self)destructive act of hunting will themselves evolve away. The justifications from these guys for why they hunt is a humorous study on the malformed male ego. The question is, will the evolution of the male homo sapiens happen fast enough to preserve enough diversity on our small planet. The odds are against us my friends. Enjoy the wild while you still can.

Evolution is the survival of those best adapted to the environment in which they exist. The loss of the animals with the largest antlers or horns is no more "unnatural" than the extinction of the Irish Elk or the Smilodon who's enormous antlers and teeth were ill suited to changing conditions. The current environment includes a recent top predator, us, who prefers the largest antlers and horns. Better suited animals for this environment will have smaller "trophies". People are the product of evolution too, and just as much a devastating part of the natural world as an epidemic, a volcanic eruption, tsunami, or forest fire.

There is no "in reverse" here. Evolution is neither toward greatness nor weakness, smallness, nor largeness. It is only about change in the frequency of characteristics (alleles, really) in the population.

It is you (us) who see weaker animals as a step "backwards;" remember, the weak ones are those that are succeeding when we cull the ablest animals. Ability is an illusion - a false measure of success - the only success is by those animals whose flavors of genes increase in the population.