It’s Survival of the Weak and Scrawny

Pronghorn 'Antelope'? Back to the books dopey, most hunters and biologists recognize that the pronghorn is not an
antelope and more closely falls into taxonomic inclusion with goats and extinct north american camels. Nothing more
disturbing than crackpot, psuedo-scientific vegans discoursing on subjects they failed in high school.

Articles like these are the ones that are typically fed to people in cities or other urban settings that have no connection to the areas where these animals actually inhabit or hunting herritage to draw any sort of truth from. Stories like this feed the environmental extremists and animal activists with money and donations from people who generally mean well but do not know what or where the truth lies. More propaganda to feed the monster that those of us who live in the west battle constantly. (i.e. think wolves) My advice to those who don't get fed both sides of the story is to research the other side and be very careful who donations are sent to and their REAL agenda. Wolves are a bigger threat in the west to game depridation than hunters. I am not a "gun nut" and neither do I suffer from "Wolfanoia." I also do not think they need to be completely exterminated either, just sound management. The same kind of management that has brought the numbers of deer, elk, and grizzly bears to the recovered numbers that they are today (pre-wolf numbers that is). Do your homework before any opinions are based on sorry-excuses-for-journalism such as this. In complete fairness I can only speak from experiences drawn from born and raised in MT. I am not speaking about other parts of the globe mentioned in the article but am immediately suspect spotting the spin put on the story with a species I am very familiar with.

WOW! Looks like Lily recieved her "info" from some self righteous anti-hunting group. Out here in Wyoming the animals that are managed by hunters just seem to produce healthy antlers year after year. The body size and health of these game animals stay steady from year to year also. A harsh winter will take it's toll on any animal and license applications are adjusted accordingly. Over the years we have shot several tropy bucks / bulls that would have died a slow painful death over the winter because they have ground their teeth down to stubs. Personally , I feel better having harvested these animals .
Maybe Lily should look into lack of habitat due to human sprall. I bet there are hundreds of tree hugging anti hunters that just love having there home built out in the "woods", away from city life. Just whose "home" did they encroach upon?? When these animals are rousted from their natural habitat and are forced off of thier natural crossings to find food then, you might see a drop in size. This is NOT from huntiing , it's from stress and hunger.

I'm not trying to be a tree hugger, but what hunting has become isn't good. I don't believe in hunting as a sport, and all it really does is cause extenctions. Realize there are 6 billion+ humans on the planet, more than any animal species (except insects). We just can't hunt animals for "fun" anymore, hunting developed for the sole purpose of getting food, and it should stay that way. If many spcies just start going extinct or genetically evolving, we as human will be in trouble. It will destroy the food chain we rely upon so much. Remember what goes around comes around. Sounds to me like this article breathes alot of truth. It also makes alot of sense. Natural Selection decides who survives, and it having tusks means you die, elephants will stop having tusks. If being big and alpha means you die, animals will stop being big and alpha. The sad truth is, we as people are being so irresponsible with everything, we don't even know what we are doing in the long run. Humanity relies on the earth too, we are not above it, not even with all our technology, we are just as vulnerable as the animals. Until we develop a way to go to another planet, build another earth, or something along those lines, We are at this planet's mercy. What goes around comes around, remember that when your hunting for "sport".

Once again here is an article which uses scientific words incorrectly. The cheif point here is that by eliminating the Alpha Males from a population this will cause the herd to suffer. Another argument would be that be that be allowing a wider population of males to breed, the resulting herd would be more genetically diverse and therefore more resistent to disease. This is what is done to restricted breeding populations such as zoos to insure to a healthier population.

The elimination of weaker members of any population in natural selection is usually accomplished by natural predators, which in this case would be animals such as wolves and coyotes. These animals remove old and diseased members and their presence has repetedly been shown to be necessary for healthy populations of deer.

If one looks at organizations which have done more to preserve natural habitats and has led the way for conservation of land, the leaders have been hunting organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited. These organzations have long understood the need to not only protect the animals but the need to protect large areas of habitat for these animals to flourish. They have also led the way in restricting the harvesting of animals from population based upon the size of the herds and the time of year, in order to preserve these populations for future generations.

The examples sited in this article: the wholesale poaching of elephants in Africa or commercial net fishing bears no resemblance to the management of hunting in the United States.

In addition the reference to Darwin is inaccurate as his treatise refers to natural selection in which animals must compete in a natural setting, this is not what we have today where populations are protected from natual predators, fed when food becomes scarce as in fires and drought, and the size of the herds reduced when they become too large, all of which demonstrates that Evolution has little to do with the management of game.

This is nonsense and anyone who hunts will tell you that. Look at the record books for these animals? There are more elk and deer then ever. I have seen many record book elk and deer while hunting and I am sure you will find others back me up on this. This is the kind of misinformation that is used by special interest groups to get public opinion behind their specific agenda's. It is also why the public finds it nearly impossible to make good decisions or even to determine who they should believe. Stop and look at the harm you are causing by spreading nonsense.

If those who report the news would take off their bias before they report it would help. Unfortunately they don't want to be confused with the facts. There is a bigger diversity and more of every animal that is cared for by hunting seasons and laws as well as those who hunt them. Where does the money come from to care for them? Hunters! I have to agree with bowhunter 28. The only places where animals are losingare the places where hunting isn't allowed and the general population and poachers take over to kill the animals.

This writer should pickup a intro to biology textbook and read the chapter on natural selection. Selective hunting does NOT cause "reverse" evolution. I'm sick of these journalists talking out of their asses about subjects they have no clue but should have mastered during high school.

Something tells me the author of this article at one time hit a squirrel in Central Park on her "green" built bicycle, on her way to a Starbucks. HHMM Now I know how a PETA Freak becomes a PETA Freak. Venison backstraps, anyone?

Please:
If ever you people would stop whining and look at the facts you would realize that game animals are helped more by huning than hurt. More money and time is spent taking care of wildlife by hunters than by any other group and no animal that has legal hunting limits has decreased in number, only increased. Get your facts streight. If you knew those hunters who are out there you would realize that many of the best animals are passed up just because of their superior genetics. As for elephants and such, most of those are killed by poachers or people protecting their crops and villages. Wake up before it's too late.

The author of this writting, Lily Huang, obviously is not familar with the breeding process of wild animals. Her assesment that the largest animals breed more and consquently strengthen the herd is terribly misleading and actually very inaccurate. Anyone who has studied wild life behavior and more specifically breeding tendencies knows that most of the breeding is done by the younger, smaller males. Smaller because they are in fact younger. The older, lager, more dominant males usually breed far less than their younger counterparts. They tend to "lock down" on a fertile femail and stay with her untill she is breed while the younger males travel greater distances and breed every female they encounter. So as to say harvesting the largest, older males weakens the herd is misleading and terribly inaccurate.

THIS BIMBO OF A REPORTER HAS HER FACTS SCREWED LIKE HER BEANIE IS ON TOO TIGHT........RESEARCH WILL SHOW THERE ARE WAY MORE TROPHY ANIMALS OUT THERE TODAY THAN EVER....WHY DO WE KEEP BREAKING THE RECORD BOOK YEAR AFTER YEAR? BECAUSE THEY ARE BREEDING BETTER THAN EVER!

Hunting isn't shrinking animals....Man's expansion and planetary domination are. Hunting is a way to control animal populations to avoid conflicting with Man's interests and to keep the population healthy. The animals are going to breed just like they have for millions of years, but the offspring resulting from breeding means more animals and there is always less and less habitat for them. Starvation occurs and conflicts with humans, (run-ins with cars, rumaging in garbage for food, etc) are inevitable. No, hunters help the populations, not hurt. If Man is concerned with shrinking animals, don't blame hunting; blame "Progress"

I have hunted for 30 years, mostly whitetail deer and bear, never been to africa. Trophy hunters are looking for mature animals. This means that the genes are still in the heard as this "trophy" mature animal has had many years to breed females in the herd. This is obviously an attempt by anti-hunters to take a "scientific' approach in bashing hunting/fishing. Expect allot more now with our new anti-gun, anti 2nd ammnedment, anti-hunter president and administration

I have to laugh at some of the comments. Especially the ones that challenge the concept of evolution. It is clear that trait based evolution is based on the fact that variable biological traits of a gene pool are passes to the next generation only by the individuals that reproduce. Selective elimination by environmental or predatory means will eliminate or morphologically alter the physiology of a genepool. In otherwords, in the future fossil record, large atlered deer would begin to disappear, while small atlered deer would appear to dominate. The selective force would be humans. The accellerator would be the gun, and the lust for the biggest rack!

Natural selection is very real, and evolutionary concepts will help us to understand the mechanistic nature of life itself. Yet another velociraptor feather in the cap for Darwin.

Statistics reveal that there are more trophy entries in the record books in the past ten years as there was in the previous thirty years combined. Most states have have adopted wonderful big game management plans (limited quota tags, focus on habitat mgmt, etc) that have allowed the proliferation of trophy animals. The quality hunting has allowed the individual states to offer these quality tags at a higher price, which only brings in additional funds for programs that create a strong representative species. If the species weakens, the states funds dissipate. Thus, the motivation to maintain mature animals is there. I am not quite sure what the motivation of this article was other than to perhaps put further constraints on hunting, such as those that exist in Europe. Not on my watch... I suggest that the author interview such organizations as RMEF and SCI for any further articles on wildlife management.