It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

Wow--"pickup a intro to biology textbook"? Someone should have picked up an English textbook to know that "a" should have been "an" AND "should have mastered during high school". How can anyone trust the opinion of someone that cannot even take the time to correct grammar? How natural is the selection if it is caused by an intelligent species unnaturally selecting game? The biggest game with the largest horns supply the worst meat; dry, tough, and gamey. If humans were hunting game for the natural purpose of it (FOOD), the oldest beasts with the largest horns would still be sitting majestically on a hill in retirement because they would have outsmarted hunters during their prime when their meat was good.
I did not get the impression that the author was a PETA freak. I thought the article pointed out a true account of how some animals are evolving due to our greedy need for trophy. I am definitely not against hunting and I eat meat, but a true hunter wants to preserve the quality of the game so that it is available in the future. Think about it before getting defensive and turning to animal rights comments.

Maybe someone should look at how the habitat has changed for these animals. In most cases, hunting is the only way to ensure populations don't exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat that supports the animal. THANKS QDMA

This article is foolish. There is no such thing as "genetically better" individuals. The individual in any species is merely the tool of the various genes it carries, serving their purpose and theirs alone. The only measure by which a gene can prove 'better' is by spreading in a gene pool. In a scenerio where the dominant predator is a bipedal primate that consciously selects prey that is largest and most extreme, the better genes are the ones that don't travel in bodies that get themselves killed early by overdeveloping. Though some (myself included) lament the loss of the 'good old days' when these creatures hadn't yet evolved to cope with habitat change and rifle-toting predators, those days are gone. Maybe we should simply watch in awe as descent with modification, steered by natural (yeah, it's true, humans didn't just appear one day, we are absolutely natural products) selection produces evolution before our eyes. Perhaps, in a few generations, our progeny will see a pattern of sub-species creation among various game animal groups based on the degree to which the geographical location in which they live is protected. Maybe one day, even farther off, the 'natural' species of game will be lithe, and show little sexual dimorphism, while the 'protected' species, those whose habitation we arbitrarily deem 'off limits' to our own species' predation, will be freakish throwbacks to a forgotten time, unable to survive in the world outside of their semi-domesticated setting.

I agree completely with the prior comments. Anyone that follows recent studies in game management knows that the items presented in this article goes against all of the extensive recent data that has been gathered on this subject. "Trophy hunting" as it is termed only helps strengthen the herd as it takes off only the oldest of animals in a selective manner ( and only a small percentage of those). a recent study published on whitetail shows that the most mature animals do a suprisingly very small amount of the breeding in any given population (and has nothing to do with antler size as many non hunters believe) and may only breed a couple of deer per year with the rest being done by a variety of younger age class deer. The game populations that suffer are the poorly managed ones (which have largely gone by the wayside over the last decade) where the animals are taken off at all age classes as this generally leads as in the case of the whitetail to a single age class population with a lack of diversity. this type of management typically is based on numbers rather than balance and leads to overforaging etc and a less healthy herd. It is a shame that the author has thrown together a bunch of opinions including her own and sprinkles in a few comments on poachers and commercial fishing and presents it as truth. This is contradictory to that of the well studied models of modern sound game management and does a disservice to those that read this article and know nothing about the topic.

Davidvlac...
put your helmet on and sit down before you hurt yourself, and just keep telling yourself whatever you need to make yourself content.
Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest"...Darwin did not say this

This shouldn't be a problem, because REAL hunters don't use guns...These days, gun powder weapons are so precise that any 2 braincell corn-fed redneck with enough patience and Walmart ammo can bag whatever animal they can aim at. Thirsty for a real sport? Try bow hunting. Worried about survival of the fittest? Take away your guns and see who can still bring home dinner then.

I agree with the statement that the article lacks any credability. The REAL hunters that I know practice wildlife management. They hunt with passion and purpose, enjoying the time in the woods and the hunt itself. They do not have to take a "trophy." Their mission is to enjoy the land, leave it better than they found it and teach future generations to also respect it. Every person on this earth should have the ethics of a true hunter!!!!

I believe hunting is one of the best, most wholesome sports in existence. Same goes for fishing. I eat every animal (fish, mammal and bird) that I harvest, and I believe that is true for most outdoor enthusiasts. I have taught my children to hunt and fish, as well as other friends and kids, and support all reasonable efforts to perpetuate these great outdoor sports. All in all, the fish and game departments strive to establish regulations and set quotas that keep a balance between hunting and overpopulation of game (resulting in numerous, ill-fed animals). As with every single type of group of people in the world, there are always a few bad apples, like unsporting hunters who kill only for trophy antlers and don't eat the meat, and uninformed tree huggers who oppose all forms of hunting and fishing without any rational basis.

To Maryland Hunter, thats what I said," illeagal hunting"
Which occurs after what? Thats right overhunting. Such as Ivory was from African Elephants!
1. Obviously you are a redneck, 2. Obviously you cant read 3. Why even spend time in front of a computer, dont you have something to shoot at?
oh and ps. Since you can not read that makes you the idiot!

The lack of predatory species more than makes up for hunting. I would like to see an actual reference on this "research." An article without references is closer than to a long text message than it is to anything journalistic.

If we didn't have hunting in this country, populations of wild animals would grow too large to naturally sustain, creating too much competition for available resources (food), and eventual disease/starvation. There are not enough natural predators to keep these populations within a healthy range, especially deer numbers. Without hunters, wild animal populations would explode, creating more long-term liabilities than assets for wildlife.

Wouldn't it be interesting to view the same concept in reverse with the human population. Humans suffer from far too many genetically damaged individuals breeding and contaminating the gene pool. Maybe we should have a strict breeding program to save the human race.

amen brother

Some people do make some interesting points in their discussion. This article does hold true to many trends seen in, at least, many game populations. In Texas alone, antler restrictions have been placed so that bucks have a higher chance of developing their secondary characteristics and breed into the viable population. This is not a fix, but a preventative measure to allow for more diversity and competition. Hunting is still a requirement for the white tail population to maintain healthy levels. I believe, at least in this case, the more dangerous practice is feeding deer (yes I realize that statement will probably raise a few feathers, but there is sound logic to it).
While studying for my undergrad degree we had to read and discuss morphological traits that had developed into such an excess that it actually caused harm to the animals. One interesting article was about wapiti populations which had encouraged antler growth to such an extreme that the bulls either could not physically lift their heads or they died by entangling themselves in brush they had once been able to pass through. Although this was not a scientific paper (it was a observation) it did raise some questions about how big is too big.
The question that I would like to see researched with these species is how the decrease in secondary characteristics affects a female's willingness to breed. Birds of paradise, for example, have very picky females and the males have developed intricate, strange and extremely showy ways of attracting mates. In their way, the females drove the evolution of mating. If a pronghorn female refuse to mate with a male because of his size would he develop other characteristics to attract her and, therefore, eliminate the need for his horns?
Some questions to ponder: If this trend of reverse evolution continues, how much harm would we actually be causing?

There is no such a thing as evolution working "forward" or "in reverse." These are actually major misconceptions on the theory as a whole.

There is no such a thing as evolution working "forward" or "in reverse." These are actually major misconceptions on the theory as a whole.

Does Lily Huang still have a job? The Elk population in the US has more than doubled since the 1970's, and likely the largest elk ever harvested in the world was taken in September 2008. One-sided journalism propaganda, if you don't know much about the content of this article...just do a little research; it takes five minutes to figure out how completely ignorant this articel is.

with out hunting most of these animals would die off in 10-15 years due to over population and lack of food

Hypocracy and the pot calling the kettle black is what this article and many of these comments are.

Example: I remamber reading a few years ago that Sir Paul McCartney who moved to our fair land from the UK stated that: He couldn't understand a counrty whose "TRADITION" was killing small helpless animals.

My reaction was: "Fox hunting, Sir Paul" In the UK they would release a fox from a box, and chase it down and kill it with horses and dogs!" Most had the title of Sir too. He should go home and crusade.