It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

It actually hurt to read this article. By its very definition, evolution cannot be reveresed. No matter what the variables are, anything that causes a change in the genetic pool of a species is an act of evolution. Nothing devolves, things only adapt. If the author wanted to say that hunting is causing animals to to adapt genetically and produce less desirable trophies, that might have made sense. How many skunks died to predators until they aquired a scent gland that made them less desirable to hunt? If future generations of Elk don't have horns, that's not devolution, that's adaptation.
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.

Why don't you guys stick to what you know best, biased political "reporting"!

Why don't you guys stick to what you know best, biased political reporting!

Being a trained wildlife biologist, I have to point out that an isolated incident with Ram Mountain (upon which I will be doing significant reading, to understand what's happening there more clearly) does not 'fit' with the reality of what wildlife biologists and managers see happening in non-isolated populations worldwide. Additionally, uncontrolled poaching of elephants equates to trophy sport hunting about like prostitution equates to marriage - the same act, practiced differently, with a different goal, and a markedly different outcome. Speaking of goals, it should be noted that evolution is not a goal-directed process. It occurs in response to stimulus,but animals cannot 'anticipate' and alter their own response. With quite literally all ungulates (deer, elk, pronghorn) in North America, and most if not all worldwide, nutrition is the primary limiting factor in relation to both body mass and antler growth. Genetics plays a role, but nothing like nutrition. I suspect if there's a declining mean size issue on Ram Mountain, it can be traced to a food issue - perhaps the drought that has been affecting the majority of the North American continent for the past decade is partly to blame. Perhaps interference by man with the habitat is to blame. Perhaps, since it seems Ram Mountain may be an isolated population, there is a genetic bottleneck occuring, and deleterious, recessive genetic traits are being made more common through the constant inbreeding as a result of the population isolation. Now, beyond even that, the consideration that fully half of the genetic makeup of a Ram descends from the female side of the genetic lineage, it seems that this biologist (whose actual qualifications and source of employment are not disclosed in the article, curiously) is reaching out from the affected end result and grasping at a cause with no (statistically) significant evidence. Where is the peer reviewed paper discussing this biologist's hypothesis that trophy hunting causes genetic decline and an overall change in fitness ranking? One could just as easily draw the illogical cause-effect relationship that taking tub baths causes heart attacks, since so many old people take tub baths rather than showers, and more old people than young have heart attacks. It's not true, but it's just as strong a factual argument as we see here.

Think of all the losers in the human population... lets start with CONGRESS

I've been a bowhunter for over 45 years and can tell you that whether its elk or deer, the populations are getting better all the time and the amount of trophy bucks and bulls keeps increasing. This article is an agenda-based diatribe by someone with an ignorance problem; along with the aforementioned agenda. And ditto the comment regarding reverse evolution in people. That is a REAL problem. Trophy hunting simply isn't.

There has been hunting, by man or beast, since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. Hunting is decreasing world wide. For example, in the US there are more deer than when the New World was discovered in 1492. Certainly elephants are extreme example. Lets take your example of mountain sheep. With the fall off in hunting, we are now feeding overpopulated herds in the western US.

By the way what is wrong with changing the breeding stock a little. Why is it OK for needle necked, nearsighted writers to reproduce? Historically they would have died off, but we have created a system where they are now seen as equally good (though that is arguable, given most writers wouldn't be trophys on any scale).

In addition, many hunting rules have evolved for this exact reason (e.g., to refocus the target). The US now has doe season, when just years ago they had none (making going after big bucks less likely). In large part this article really points to the Asian/African Ivory trade as a boogeyman for hunting. This is kind of like wanting to outlaw aspirin in the US because of drug dealers in Mexico.

Hunting is a great way to ensure a reasonable population is maintained. Hunters are more aware of a species viability than anyone else. For example Ducks Unlimited called for the preservation of wetlands and breeding areas long before writers from Columbia Unversity knew what was going on. As well, hunting helps maintained an armed citizenry which is fundamental to freedom. Stalin took away hunting rights in the late 20s and 30s from Ukrainian peasants. Then he took there guns. Then he took there food and starved 30+ million inside of one decade (putting even Hitler to shame); read "Harvest of Sorrow" for details.

the effect of hunting and killing the largest and the strongest is indeed evolution in reverse. Natural predators, such as lions, sharks, etc, keep a population of prey species healthy by killing off the weaker and slower animals. The stronger animals survive and reproduce. This is understood. Human's hunting the strongest has the reverse effect: it removes the strongest individuals from a population, allowing the weaker to survive. Whats the big deal about hunting the animals with big horns? Traits such as large horns signal genetic fitness in ways that humans cannot detect, but animals can. These animals normally mate more because their horns signal their overall health and fitness. By hunting and killing these individuals humans reverse the weeding out effect that natural predators cause.

I think the bigger issue that Lily Huang is overlooking here is the theory of "evolution in reverse" for humans. You can do you own field research on this theory by visiting any given Walmart on a saturday afternoon.

Me thinks JC Taylor loves Ted Nugent and thinks Bush and his crew are doing a hell of a job. I think Lily Huang wrote a accurate article.It doesn't take a brain surgeon,but when you cull the best animals from the herd, the herd suffers. Although anyone who likes to hang their trophy heads on their walls and enjoys killing animals for pleasure most likely won't get it.

It???s a theory, sho???nuff???and probably a valid one. Not in the case of elephants as they were over harvested for market rather than sport. In certain places that theory will prove out. In most places it won???t. In order for a species to survive in this modern world, its best bet is to have economic value. The highest value in the current environment comes from sport hunting???usually. That being the case, it pays to let critters grow up and get big. Privately managed places, like most of the souther part of Africa, are doing that well, and critters harvested are among the biggest of all time. Publicly managed places, like most of the US, are managing populations of game animals to create financing for fish and game departments. That creates situations where over pressure and over harvest are common, and the theory of the article will prove to be accurate. In spite of all that, there are plenty of places in the US where people have figured out how to manage for big, healthy critters in spite of the public governance, and been rewarded for doing so.

For the record, the heads in the picture are not kudu, as the caption says, but eland. And big ones. I believe the other hunter with TR, is, I believe, his son, Kermitt.

Lily Huang obviously hasn't done her homework on this subject and this is all sensationalism. I can't believe the editors didn't send her back to the drawing board on this one before it was published.

I thought this was a reputable magazine, but obviously not. How could a magazine of this standing let such one sided drivel get to the presses?

I???m not well informed on the practices on other continents, but here in North America, I've seen game management and antler production improve, not decline. If you visit some of the ranches in Texas and Mexico, you'll see white-tail deer with incredible antlers in very high ratios to the number of animals with poor antler quality. Aside from the operations that import genetics from other locations, if you only take into account native, indigenous herds, you'll see that the landowners are managing their herds very well and have improved the overall condition of the herds, beyond what would occur naturally. They maintain and sustain the number of animals for the optimum carrying capacity of the land, age structure and male to female ratios.

Sure, left well enough alone, without any humans in the picture at all, nature would maintain the balance, but man is here and is an integral part of the ecology. Nature???s balance also can be very drastic and when man intervenes, he can sustain a more "flat" line in lieu of the drastic ups and downs of nature.

In reference to the Bighorn Sheep herd mentioned in this article, I think pneumonia and lung worm have had more impact on the health and horn growth than hunting. And I wonder where the funding for Marco Festa-Bianchet's studies comes from. I'd be willing to bet that Pittman Robertson funds and funds from organizations like The Wild Sheep Foundation are either directly or indirectly involved. Hunter and Angler dollars have done more to conserve sheep/wildlife habitat (by far) than any other source. Also, using this one herd as the example to make your point is very narrow minded and misleading. Here in Texas, the world record for Desert Bighorn Sheep is broken every year. That is unheard of and tells me that The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department is doing a fabulous job of managing our Desert Bighorn population.

The assertion in the last paragraph; "most wildlife departments managing hunting harvests simply count the heads each year and decide how many to let hunters bag without thinking about genes" is utterly ridiculous. Most, if not all, fish & wildlife departments take many, many factors into account when setting limits and quotas each season. The amount of resources devoted to this is there for anyone who wants to see it. The science and research that goes into establishing these limits and quotas is very sophisticated, wdie ranging and impressive. To say that all these wildlife departments do is "count heads" is one of the most ignorant statements in Journalism I've ever read.

Because of great rattle snake roundups, Texas now has a much greater population of rattile-snakes without any rattles . Now they have no ability to alert unwary humans of their presence. But, they stand a much greater chance of surviving the next round-up.

There are no such things as genetic "losers" or "winners". These ideas come from high school politics not from the animal kingdom. This is just another example of humans imposing their social structures on natural order. Somehow it reminds me of Steve Martin trying on his tux in the movie Parenthood. The seams of this analogy are splitting. The reason for variance is adaptability. All species must hold on to the whole bag of tricks in order to survive. Any species without these "losers" would be wiped off the face of the earth in short order. Could it be that human beings are just too short sited to see that there is a clear distinction between individual short-term success and what it takes for a species to survive? It is almost as if the writer erroneously imposed free-market capitalist ideals (Bigger, stronger, faster) over the entire natural world. It would be in all our best interest to understand these systems as they are, not as we think they should be. Let's take, for example, a dolphin. Here is a species that began as a fish, evolved to a land mammal (that probably couldn't swim more than an hour at a time) and then back to a creature of the sea. This is not regression or degradation. This is progress and adaptation. The only way evolution can go backwards is if time itself was going backwards. Lastly, I am familiar with many attempts of hunters as well as land management services to impose slot limits to hunting and fishing which benefit hunters as much as anyone. Why was there no mention of these efforts? This article is well below the paper's standard. I would guess that the writer's understandable eagerness to save the planet has clouded her thinking and fact-finding ability.

There are no such things as genetic "losers" or "winners". These ideas come from high school politics not from the animal kingdom. This is just another example of humans imposing their social structures on natural order. Somehow it reminds me of Steve Martin trying on his tux in the movie Parenthood. The seams of this analogy are splitting. The reason for variance is adaptability. All species must hold on to the whole bag of tricks in order to survive. Any species without these "losers" would be wiped off the face of the earth in short order. Could it be that human beings are just too short sited to see that there is a clear distinction between individual short-term success and what it takes for a species to survive? It is almost as if the writer erroneously imposed free-market capitalist ideals (Bigger, stronger, faster) over the entire natural world. It would be in all our best interest to understand these systems as they are, not as we think they should be. Let's take, for example, a dolphin. Here is a species that began as a fish, evolved to a land mammal (that probably couldn't swim more than an hour at a time) and then back to a creature of the sea. This is not regression or degradation. This is progress and adaptation. The only way evolution can go backwards is if time itself was going backwards. Lastly, I am familiar with many attempts of hunters as well as land management services to impose slot limits to hunting and fishing which benefit hunters as much as anyone. Why was there no mention of these efforts? This article is well below the paper's standard. I would guess that the writer's understandable eagerness to save the planet has clouded her thinking and fact-finding ability.

Lily Huang obviously hasn't done her homework on this subject and this is all sensationalism. I can???t believe the editors didn???t send her back to the drawing board on this one before it was published.
I thought this was a reputable magazine, but obviously not. How could a magazine of this standing let such one sided drivel get to the presses?
I???m not well informed on the practices on other continents, but here in North America, I???ve seen game management and antler production improve, not decline. If you visit some of the ranches in Texas and Mexico, you???ll see white-tail deer with incredible antlers in very high ratios to the number of animals with poor antler quality. Aside from the operations that import genetics from other locations, if you only take into account native, indigenous herds, you???ll see that the landowners are managing their herds very well and have improved the overall condition of the herds, beyond what would occur naturally. They maintain and sustain the number of animals for the optimum carrying capacity of the land, age structure and male to female ratios.
Sure, left well enough alone, nature would maintain the balance, but man is here and is an integral part of the ecology. Nature???s balance also can be very drastic and when man intervenes, he can sustain a more ???flat??? line in lieu of the drastic ups and downs of nature.
In reference to the Bighorn Sheep herd mentioned in this article, I think pneumonia and lung worm have had more impact on the health and horn growth than hunting. And I wonder where the funding for Marco Festa-Bianchet???s studies comes from. I???d be willing to bet that Pittman Robertson funds and funds from organizations like The Wild Sheep Foundation are either directly or indirectly involved. Hunter???s and Angler???s dollars have done more to conserve sheep habitat (by far) than any other source. Also, using this one herd as the example to make you point is very narrow minded and misleading. Here in Texas, the world record for Desert Bighorn Sheep is broken every year. That is unheard of and tells me that The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department is doing a fabulous job of managing our Desert Bighorn population.
The assertion in the last paragraph; ???most wildlife departments managing hunting harvests simply count the heads each year and decide how many to let hunters bag without thinking about genes??? is utterly ridiculous. Most, if not all, fish & wildlife departments take many, many factors into account when setting limits and quotas each season. The amount of resources devoted to this is there for anyone who wants to see it. To say that all these wildlife departments do is ???count heads??? is one of the most ignorant statements in Journalism. Again, how the editors of Newsweek let this article get to the point of being published astounds me.