Article: Natural selection gives way to human selection

meerkat

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Location
Toronto
Natural selection gives way to human selection

Practice of hunting and harvesting the biggest animals or plants is changing species much faster than nature, researchers find

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
January 13, 2009 at 4:15 AM EST

Humans have become "superpredators," speeding up the evolution of the species they hunt and harvest at rates far above what is found in nature, according to new research, some of it conducted by Canadian biologists.

The researchers believe that many recently observed changes in species, ranging from the shrinkage in the horns of bighorn sheep in the Rockies to the reduction in the size of caribou in Scandinavia, are being driven by humans.

The biologists estimate that hunting has caused such characteristics as body size and reproductive age to change at a rate that is a staggering 300 per cent above the pace that would prevail in nature. This figure is even greater than the change attributed to other human interferences, such as pollution, which was estimated to alter species 50 per cent faster than what normally happens.

"The implications are pretty wide and profound," said Paul Paquet, a University of Calgary biologist who dubs humans "superpredators" for this outsized impact.

A paper outlining the findings was posted yesterday in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In it, Dr. Paquet and others argue that current hunting and harvesting practices are inadvertently causing dramatic changes in the behaviour and appearance of species. The reason: Humans tend to "high-grade" nature, taking out the biggest and best in a species.

The approach is clearest in trophy hunting, where animals with the biggest horns or bodies are killed, while inferior ones are left. But the practice also occurs in commercial fishing, where mesh openings in nets capture the biggest fish while smaller ones escape.

The human approach is the opposite to what happens in nature, where predators kill the easiest-to-catch animals, such as the young, the old and the sick, but are unable to take out the fittest adults, which then reproduce and pass their desirable characteristics on to future generations.

Many hunting rules are based on a view that bagging mature animals is the best approach, but Dr. Paquet says humans should be trying to emulate nature, even though at first glance it doesn't seem sporting to kill younger creatures. "That's clearly the best management regime," he said.

The researchers, who are affiliated with the University of Calgary and the University of Victoria as well as two U.S. universities, looked at 34 studies that examined physical or biological characteristics in 29 species subject to heavy pressure from human predation. Besides the bighorn sheep and caribou, they included snails; a pair of medicinal plants; and various commercially caught fish.

"Harvested organisms are the fastest-changing organisms of their kind in the wild because we are superpredators and we take such high proportions of a population and target the largest individuals," Dr. Paquet said.

The rate of change is staggering from an evolutionary point of view, where the alteration in species is often thought to occur slowly. Alberta's bighorn sheep, for instance, have experienced a 20-per-cent drop in the length and size of their horns in only the past 30 years. The sheep are prized for the distinctive curve in their horns, making them sought-after trophies.

Atlantic cod, whose populations have collapsed because of overfishing, now reproduce at an average age of five years, rather than six, as was the case previously. The change, which in humans would amount to children reaching ###ual maturity and having offspring at ages of around nine to 11, occurred in only two decades.

Among the species harvested or hunted by humans and reviewed in the paper, body size or horn size decreased by an average 18 per cent. There was also a pattern of reproduction at an earlier age or smaller size.

*****

THE DIMINISHING PREY

BIGHORN SHEEP

The sheep, found in mountainous areas of Western Canada and the United States, are famed for the unusual curved horns on the rams. The rams are hunted as trophies, but researchers believe the practice of taking the biggest specimens has prompted genetic change leading to a marked decline in horn size.

CARIBOU

Caribou from southern Norway, the last remaining wild population in Europe, have shrunk because of hunting. The selective killing of the biggest animals has led to a reduction in the size of bodies, antlers and jaws. Researchers suspect the same trend may have occurred in southern populations of caribou in Canada.

AMERICAN GINSENG

The gnarled root of the plant is prized for its medicinal properties - collected for illnesses ranging from cancer to Alzheimer's disease. But extensive harvesting has led to a change in the composition of wild stands, with an increased number of smaller, non-reproductive plants.

COD

The destruction of cod stocks has led to altered reproductive behaviour. The fish produce eggs at a younger age, but this early breeding has a big drawback. The early breeders are producing abnormally low numbers of eggs.
 
This theory on sheep was argued many years ago. They shoot the ten year old rams with the great horns, so that leaves the inferior to breed.
I say this is a crock of BS.
If you believe this, you have to believe that a child you fathered when you were eighteen, would have much inferior genes, to one you may father when you are sixty five.
That splendid old ram of eight to ten years you just shot, has likely sired a whole bunch of sheep that are running all over the mountain.
 
Some animals have been getting smaller for thousands of years. Look at elk size for an example. As for the cod, they could just now noticing that the younger fish were breeding all along. I don't doubt there is some impact. I doubt the extent of the impact as well as the researcher's motives.
 
This theory on sheep was argued many years ago. They shoot the ten year old rams with the great horns, so that leaves the inferior to breed.
I say this is a crock of BS.
If you believe this, you have to believe that a child you fathered when you were eighteen, would have much inferior genes, to one you may father when you are sixty five.
That splendid old ram of eight to ten years you just shot, has likely sired a whole bunch of sheep that are running all over the mountain.

+1...absolutely!
although I do my part for nature cuzz I prefer the flesh of younger animals for food.
I always joke that the trophies should be the smallest ones as the target is smaller :D
 
This article seems misleading to me. The way its written makes hunting/hunters look like they are the leading cause of these problems. Hunting can't hold a candle to the damage brought by pollution, commercial fishing, and biggest of all, destruction of habitat.

I find it ridiculous that hunting would receive so much attention over other factors in this matter. Hunters help pay for conservation; Yet I don't see deep sea drag net fishing paying to help manage the ocean floor, or cities paying to offset the damage done by expansion.

Seems to me, hunting is far less damaging to nature, and is at least giving something back for what it takes. How about calling attention to the real issues threatening our environment and stop pointing the finger at hunters just because they shoot "Cute, furry critters"?

I have a strong feeling its because the real issues don't come off as interesting. Better attention by blaming blood thirsty hunters for societies woes.
 
Last edited:
This theory on sheep was argued many years ago. They shoot the ten year old rams with the great horns, so that leaves the inferior to breed.
I say this is a crock of BS.
If you believe this, you have to believe that a child you fathered when you were eighteen, would have much inferior genes, to one you may father when you are sixty five.
That splendid old ram of eight to ten years you just shot, has likely sired a whole bunch of sheep that are running all over the mountain.

Agree
 
Someone should send the author of this study a copy of the B&C record book, would have definately saved him some time and research. It has quantified and qualified over the past 121 years what he has attempted to do in a mere small fraction of that time frame- North America wide for all Big Game species.

When I look through the book there are plenty of new world record heads killed with the most ever new records killed in one recording period last edition. Look at all of the big rams that have been killed since 2000? Seems to de-bunk his bighorn theory about the horns getting smaller?
 
Last edited:
This theory on sheep was argued many years ago. They shoot the ten year old rams with the great horns, so that leaves the inferior to breed.
I say this is a crock of BS.
If you believe this, you have to believe that a child you fathered when you were eighteen, would have much inferior genes, to one you may father when you are sixty five.
That splendid old ram of eight to ten years you just shot, has likely sired a whole bunch of sheep that are running all over the mountain.


i don't think thats quite the angle presented. try thinking like a national geographic video - you see lions or some other predator hunt some species of prey - lets say impala. The lions grab what they can catch - and most often that means the young, the very old or the handicapped. thus the strongest numbers of the impala survive.

As humans we prize the most impressive looking creature when hunting so we don't go for the young, the very old or the handicapped. We shoot the strong ones that look nice on a wall.

The argument of the article is that this approach by humans is altering evolution of the species we target. We kill the strong and the impressive and that leads the weak and the small to carry on the species.

it does not suggest any variance in strength between offspring from one animal throughout that animal's lifespan as you suggest.
 
I am an animal scientist, and I do believe there is some merit to the points brought up in the article. There is undeniable "selection pressure" brought on the genetics of a population by shooting the biggest and quickest growing animals. In a low-use situation like Dall rams in the Yukon, I do not think that there is any significant pressure on population genetics by shooting old rams, for reasons already stated. But compare to deer in heavily hunted areas. If nearly every big whitetail buck gets killed selectively every year for many years, the pressure on the genetics is obvious.
I appreciate BIG big game animals as much as any committed and enthusiastic hunter. But I'm not much of a trophy hunter because I think the concept has been promoted by the hunting industry and the media WAY too much. It seems like even beginner hunters all want to shoot the "big one" and current popular hunting culture puts very little emphasis on the aesthetics and ethics of hunting. Our hunting has become far too results oriented, and not enough about obtaining good food from the wild, a hunters proper place in the ecosystem, and appreciation for all animals brought to bag.
I'm sure there will be many defensive and dismissive comments made by other hunters about this article. I invite everyone to give the issue a little sober thought before getting too defensive.
Just my two cents, I'm sure there are other equally valid views.
 
This theory on sheep was argued many years ago. They shoot the ten year old rams with the great horns, so that leaves the inferior to breed.
I say this is a crock of BS.
If you believe this, you have to believe that a child you fathered when you were eighteen, would have much inferior genes, to one you may father when you are sixty five.
That splendid old ram of eight to ten years you just shot, has likely sired a whole bunch of sheep that are running all over the mountain.

x2

And for some other animals, ther is no truth to it...As hundreds of mon trophy deer are killed for every "trophy" deer:slap:
 
The human approach is the opposite to what happens in nature, where predators kill the easiest-to-catch animals, such as the young, the old and the sick, but are unable to take out the fittest adults, which then reproduce and pass their desirable characteristics on to future generations.
I'd like to know what percentage are 'the young, the old and the sick'. Lots of healthy adult male animals are routinely killed by predators the world over.
 
This theory on sheep was argued many years ago. They shoot the ten year old rams with the great horns, so that leaves the inferior to breed.
I say this is a crock of BS.
If you believe this, you have to believe that a child you fathered when you were eighteen, would have much inferior genes, to one you may father when you are sixty five.
That splendid old ram of eight to ten years you just shot, has likely sired a whole bunch of sheep that are running all over the mountain.

I think you are arguing apples and oranges. The problem they are documenting is that REMOVAL from the breeding pool is preventing 'superior' genes from being passed on. With rams they have to fight to mate and only the fittest (and some sneaky ones ;) ) win the fight. With humans our only fight to mate scenario usually is more like a 'beg to mate' scene. :D

Also keep in mind that this pressure (removal) has to be of population level. So with non competing to mate fish like cod fishnets scooping out all the big fish works. With competing to mate animals like sheep you have to remove the 'winner' ram each year, year after year. Is this happening? Definately not everywhere but I just watched the three biggest elk bulls in the area get shot this year. Didn't see their gut piles having much ###...... ;)

I dont see this article contributing to me losing hunting rights at all. I don't see it as wrong either.
(Having said that I now need to download the whole article and read it closely)
 
I wonder what the percentage of trophy hunters is in relation to "meat" hunters. A lot of us hunt for the good eating.

It's the old saying "Horns make pretty thin soup."
 
Last edited:
Natural selection gives way to human selection

Practice of hunting and harvesting the biggest animals or plants is changing species much faster than nature, researchers find

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
January 13, 2009 at 4:15 AM EST

Humans have become "superpredators," speeding up the evolution of the species they hunt and harvest at rates far above what is found in nature, according to new research, some of it conducted by Canadian biologists.

The researchers believe that many recently observed changes in species, ranging from the shrinkage in the horns of bighorn sheep in the Rockies to the reduction in the size of caribou in Scandinavia, are being driven by humans.

The biologists estimate that hunting has caused such characteristics as body size and reproductive age to change at a rate that is a staggering 300 per cent above the pace that would prevail in nature. This figure is even greater than the change attributed to other human interferences, such as pollution, which was estimated to alter species 50 per cent faster than what normally happens.

"The implications are pretty wide and profound," said Paul Paquet, a University of Calgary biologist who dubs humans "superpredators" for this outsized impact.

A paper outlining the findings was posted yesterday in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In it, Dr. Paquet and others argue that current hunting and harvesting practices are inadvertently causing dramatic changes in the behaviour and appearance of species. The reason: Humans tend to "high-grade" nature, taking out the biggest and best in a species.

The approach is clearest in trophy hunting, where animals with the biggest horns or bodies are killed, while inferior ones are left. But the practice also occurs in commercial fishing, where mesh openings in nets capture the biggest fish while smaller ones escape.

The human approach is the opposite to what happens in nature, where predators kill the easiest-to-catch animals, such as the young, the old and the sick, but are unable to take out the fittest adults, which then reproduce and pass their desirable characteristics on to future generations.

Many hunting rules are based on a view that bagging mature animals is the best approach, but Dr. Paquet says humans should be trying to emulate nature, even though at first glance it doesn't seem sporting to kill younger creatures. "That's clearly the best management regime," he said.

The researchers, who are affiliated with the University of Calgary and the University of Victoria as well as two U.S. universities, looked at 34 studies that examined physical or biological characteristics in 29 species subject to heavy pressure from human predation. Besides the bighorn sheep and caribou, they included snails; a pair of medicinal plants; and various commercially caught fish.

"Harvested organisms are the fastest-changing organisms of their kind in the wild because we are superpredators and we take such high proportions of a population and target the largest individuals," Dr. Paquet said.

The rate of change is staggering from an evolutionary point of view, where the alteration in species is often thought to occur slowly. Alberta's bighorn sheep, for instance, have experienced a 20-per-cent drop in the length and size of their horns in only the past 30 years. The sheep are prized for the distinctive curve in their horns, making them sought-after trophies.

More hippie bullsh__t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just saw some wierdo from the suzuki foundation backing this crap on the news.
 
There was a story about this on the National News last night, but I didn't catch it...How many sheep are taken in BC each year? Enough to take all the big ones out of the breeding?
 
bioligist should not ascribe value. To say a Ram with large horns is superior is to commit an error...there is no base to make that assumption.

there is no proof that nature knows best...hell there is no best.. there just is.
 
Back
Top Bottom