Time is running out....

[4Falls]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709

[TLH]

I think they hit the nail on the head when they discussed the DNA or genetic diversity. If there are only one group of sheep on sheep mountain and there has never been new introduction of some other gene pool then essentially you have inbreeding with brothers and sisters or mothers and sons--this will end up killing the size and the intelligence of these animals.

 

As for the elk being less likely to have monster antlers--i call b.s.! We have more elk with bigger antlers than ever before (or at least until we started keeping record books) true commercial hunting has a bad effect on animals because they are not looking at any type of animal they just want the most and to get them to stores but we don't commercial hunt.

 

Also, if a young buck breeds with a doe and his Pappy was a stud of a buck doesn't he still have the genes of that monster Daddy? Sure he does so i am not sure a younger buck or bull is the problem here.

 

I am far from being a biologist or a geneticist but man sometimes common sense has to come to the for front--don't ya think?

[Red Rabbit]

Don't forget that half the genes are carried by the females. Kinda hard to choose a doe/cow/ewe for trophy horns/antlers.

 

No mention about changes in the average age of the studies species, or other outside factors that may have influenced the population's head status.

[scoutm]

It’s nothing more than a veiled attempt to paint a negative image of the hunter/conservationist. It attempts to show that the very act of hunting weakens a species through “evolution in reverse” therefore hunters can’t claim they’re conservationist.

 

 

[4Falls]

Its more of a jab at game and fish agencies because they use hunting as a management tool. Most anti hunting groups believe wildlife should just be left alone with absolutley no human intervention. Then you have the bunch who would rather see wildlife managed with other wildlife i.e. wolves, grizzlies and others.

[JMP]

here's my question about this.

 

suppose there are two bucks in an area rutting for does. the first buck is 7 years old. big. etc. the second buck is 3 years old, and smaller, but was sired by the 7 year old 4 years earlier. suppose this year a hunter kills the 7 year old before the rut, and the 3 year old breeds all of the does. do the genes of a deer change as the buck ages, such that he's going to father stronger fawns when he's 7 and in his prime than when he was 3?

 

 

 

[NRS]

here's my question about this.

 

suppose there are two bucks in an area rutting for does. the first buck is 7 years old. big. etc. the second buck is 3 years old, and smaller, but was sired by the 7 year old 4 years earlier. suppose this year a hunter kills the 7 year old before the rut, and the 3 year old breeds all of the does. do the genes of a deer change as the buck ages, such that he's going to father stronger fawns when he's 7 and in his prime than when he was 3?

 

No, the genes do not change with age. Everything starts and ends with the same gene sequence they were created with when the sperm met the egg and started the whole reproduction process. As someone stated above this is mostly BS. Look at how many Bull Elk over 400 were killed this year in this state. As for the sheep population, any population that you can round up and collect samples from every year is a very small population in a very limited area. They do not get any genetic interchange from other populations to maintain viability.

 

The article was obviously written by somebody with no real world experience with wildlife populations and was trying to make a point that hunting is bad without being up front about his real message.

[gauchoand]

This story is as much B.S. as global warming...trophy quality is not going to decrease because they hunt trophy quality animals. A younger animal that one day will be trophy has the same ability to breed an animal as an older one that already is trophy quality exspecially if the older one is being hunted. I think that trophy quality is mostly porpotional to age and the ability to grow old and not be killed is based on their ability to not get in front of my bow. If they want to increase trophy quality deer I propose this idea I have talked about with other hunters. That would be to kill more spikes. The trophy quality animals are going to grow forks their first year not just spikes. Therefore by getting rid of the non-trophy quality animals early it increases the chance that the trophy quality get to breed more often even at younger ages. Sounds good to me extra hunting season.

[4Falls]

There is a grain of truth to this but the control data is flawed. It theorizes that hunters ONLY harvest trophy animals, which is not necessarily true. However most private hunting areas and even some of the Reservations all have "cull" hunts to try to control which bucks/bulls are doing the breeding. I would imagine that if it were only legal to harvest 4 point or better deer after time you would have some giant 3x3s wandering around.

But what do I know Im just a dumb hunter.

[TAM]

If I go out hunting and come across two bucks standing side by side and one is a 6 year old 110" class buck and the other is a 2 year old 50" class buck and I shoot the bigger buck, the only thing we know for sure is that I killed the older buck. The younger buck could have had better genetics that would have allowed him to grow to 120" class buck for all we know. Perhaps I just let the future world record walk?

 

Also at a certain point animals will live beyond there effictive breeding age. They will still have impressive head gear, but for the most part the younger more physically fit animals will be engaging in the majority of the breeding. That is exactly the type of animals many trophy hunters are after.

[DUG]

A guy at work showed me the article. What about all the 'trophies' that don't get killed that year. They obviously pass their genes on. I've taken mostly dinks and freaks out of the gene pool.

[Rembrant]

Nothing but a big fat lie (evolution) to spread another big fat lie (hunting is bad). There is no truth in any of it.

Evolution is the one scientific area that operates exclusively outside the parameters of mathematics. Why? Because the mathematical imposibilities don't fit the theory, so instead of debunking the theory, they threw the math out instead.

Mike

[NRS]

I read the original paper yesterday, only 5 of the 453 studies that they reviewed actually measured a decrease in sizes from a wide range of species. In the other studies the size shrinkage was "deduced from the data set". In other words they did not have the information so they guessed based on their personal biases.

[SilentButDeadly]

When I first saw the headlines I called BS too. I would not bet anyone that the researchers who published these studies are hunters. If the science is sound it should speak for itself, even though all the different factions are going to claim authority over it.

 

However, even I realize that 'over-hunting' or 'over-fishing' can damage the health of a population. Its obvious that elk are being managed well, as are deer... Why is it so hard to believe that *some* species need a different management strategy to help ensure they reach large 'trophy' size?

 

The NY times has another article about this subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/science/13fish.html?_r=1

 

towards the end of the article:

 

"Some fisheries scientists have said their studies of fish stock had not shown a correlation between fishing intensity and growth rates. And some wildlife conservationists question the idea that hunting can have harmful effects on species.

 

Dr. Paquet said that although he had confidence in the new findings, he knew there would be questions about the analytical methods he and his fellow researchers used. “That’s expected,” he said. “That’s how science proceeds.”

 

He said he had anticipated that the work would be “contentious” among trophy hunters. “Essentially, we are saying, ‘You should not do this because it is having effects even you might not like,’ ” he said."

 

I think its important that you give this work a fair look; read it yourself and then judge it; don't jump to conclusions without seeing what they've had to say. What if they are right? Do you think everyone believed Aldo Leopold when he first wrote about the Kaibab deer herd?? Just think about what has been accomplished through science based management with those animals! Shoot, just look at what we've accomplished breeding dogs!

 

I'm going to download the article tomorrow at work (any computer on UofA campus is tied into free science journal subscriptions); if anyone wants a personal copy PM me. I plan on taking my highlighter to it, to see if I can find any problems with their math.

 

to be continued....

 

 

[SilentButDeadly]

So I read the Darimont et al. PNAS article.

 

These are the things that struck me:

 

They choose to use the word "Human Predator" to describe the method of commercially harvesting wildlife;

 

When they show the measurements, they say: "length/horn size" are the two measurements used in the study; of the 29 species, only 2 were ungulates (both bighorn sheep, from the same published study), the rest were either arthopods, fish, or plants; mostly fish.

 

The authors do state in the results "commercial harvests showed greater change than recreational/scientific harvest" -- basically, big net fishing operations that take huge numbers of a population indiscriminately have a greater effect (by selecting from the Mode -- most common #) than hunting.

 

I also downloaded the supplemental data in an excel spreadsheet; Of the two measurements taken from sheep, weight, and horn size, the magnitude of change for weight = 0.232, and horn = 0.029; the average of all species for the study was ~0.210 -- so sheep are above average change for weight, and far below (one of the smallest) for horn length.

 

The thing that gets me is that this study, without the bighorns this would have been just as significant (maybe more) at pointing out what we've already known for decades -- WE ARE OVERFISHING OUR OCEANS! But by putting a single ungulate species, from a single study location on the list they can now attack ALL of the world of ungulate hunting, suggesting that it is causing a decline in animal quality!