It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

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.

A remarkably unsophisticated article which would be not be accepted for publication by any wildlife-savy editor, hunter or not. But as a hunter, let me say...if you don't like it don't support it. But there is no call for indiscriminate insults. And those of us who enjoy it - as I do, with only an occasional bird killed over a pointing dog each fall - leave us alone. We owe you mo justifications. Just leave us alone.

As a Professional Hunter, i can tell you that this is a very flawed assesment. the authors of the study are making a very far reaching assumption. The assumption is that a hunter has their choice of animals to cull. not so fast my friend, on this property i manage, according to my trail cams, i only lost one of my top 10 bucks. As a friend of mine says, 'We're part time hunters after full time animals'. My money's on tha animals every time. Trophy animals did not get that way by being stupid. if you can fool one, you are the exception, not the rule.

I'm a professional hunter and I can tell you that this is a very superficial argument. until you've pursued the trophy animals they are reffering to, there is no appreciation for how difficult the challenge is and the fact that probably 99.5% out of 100 times it is the animal that is successfull in evasion, not the hunter. As a friend of mine puts it, we are part time hunters and they're full time animals. These researchers and others think that folling a trophy animal in it's own environment is the rule, it's very much the exception. i only lost one of this properties top 10 bucks this year according to trail cams showing me what we had and still have after the conclusion of the season. it was not for lack of trying on the hunters part. my money's always on tha animals.

Can't eat them horns, boys (and gals). Very few people need to hunt; it does supplement the food stuffs for many in the poverty class. The rich just hunt to kill something; pure and simple. Hunting in itself is not bad - just bad hunters.

I don't believe hunting is bad. It's in the instincts of all animals, including humans. Banning hunting would be like banning membership to social groups or banning sex. It's one of a subset of basic needs that people have.

Also, @JPACTS, what the hell are you talking about? This article has been reporting on observable patterns that occur over a very long time. Are you one of those morons that think creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes?