I think that most hunters are trophy hunters at heart. When you head out into the deer woods each fall you do so with the expectation that you might shoot that "deer of a lifetime". For those who love their venison this expectation decreases as the hunt shortens and the need to put some meat in the freezer increases. I guess I'm lucky in Manitoba, doe tags and the fact that our family hunts, allows me to trophy hunt (we don't need 12 deer). In the lean years though any deer was a trophy deer.
Article: Natural selection gives way to human selection
- Thread starter meerkat
- Start date
I think that most hunters are trophy hunters at heart. When you head out into the deer woods each fall you do so with the expectation that you might shoot that "deer of a lifetime". For those who love their venison this expectation decreases as the hunt shortens and the need to put some meat in the freezer increases. I guess I'm lucky in Manitoba, doe tags and the fact that our family hunts, allows me to trophy hunt (we don't need 12 deer). In the lean years though any deer was a trophy deer.
There is merit to the article. Will a rancher take his best bull from the heard every year? I have taken 2 huge bucks in my 36 years of Deer hunting, now I hunt more for the sake of hunting, and mostly take a Doe or 2 for the meat. Our Whitetail numbers are high and they need to be kept in check, so we have an extra Doe tag. Many around hear would never take a Doe, it is beneath them. But it is not beneath the same people to hunt from the seat of a pickup.
I have been reading more about what's behind these so called 'stidies,' of game animals deteriorating in quality, because of hunting.
Without a doubt, this 'study' and others like it, is a plan by the anti hunters, gun haters, to try and blame hunters for everything.
The same was true of the recent 'scare' about getting lead poisonning from eating game meat.
Without a doubt, this 'study' and others like it, is a plan by the anti hunters, gun haters, to try and blame hunters for everything.
The same was true of the recent 'scare' about getting lead poisonning from eating game meat.
treebutcher
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
H4831 is right on target, it dosn't matter if you hunt horns or meat. The general idea is anti hunting.
AGREE
I'm basicly a meat hunter
If I see a large moose (antlers) and a smaller one I would shoot the smaller one (more tender)
A large White tail I would probably take the shot (someday)
Last edited:
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
well I have had a few discussions with wild life biologist in my time working in forestry and doing land management.
When it comes to ungulates that shed their anltlers annualy genetics has little to do with the size of antlers. The key factor is diet, and the ability to metabolize calcium. Good years a healthy animal will grow a bigger rack, old and young animals won't be able to metabolize as much calcium or the calcium goes to building mass rather then antlers. So all things being equal the mature healthy buck will grow bigger antlers.
However if your constantly harrasing the deer population they will be stressed and not be able to feed on their prefered feed or not get enough feed. Therefore they will not metabolize as much calcium and not have as big of antlers.
This review of selected studies is flawed in my opinion. Too many unlike studies are lumped together, like cherry picking statistics.
When it comes to ungulates that shed their anltlers annualy genetics has little to do with the size of antlers. The key factor is diet, and the ability to metabolize calcium. Good years a healthy animal will grow a bigger rack, old and young animals won't be able to metabolize as much calcium or the calcium goes to building mass rather then antlers. So all things being equal the mature healthy buck will grow bigger antlers.
However if your constantly harrasing the deer population they will be stressed and not be able to feed on their prefered feed or not get enough feed. Therefore they will not metabolize as much calcium and not have as big of antlers.
This review of selected studies is flawed in my opinion. Too many unlike studies are lumped together, like cherry picking statistics.
The media are out to sell a product so will write anything to catch your attention. Here is the real journal article:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~darimont/publications/Darimont et al 2009 Human predators.pdf
(is it cool to post the link mods? Modify as needed.)
There is a mixed bag of truth here. Much media hype about 'hunting' pressure when only 2 of the 29 species included in the analysis are hunted (but 21 of 29 are fished) so yes hunters are unfairly taking the heat for the whole deal when really this is a 'fish' article with a handfull of other species thrown in to make it seem well rounded. Flip side is, their analysis (based on the data available) is accurate. So yes human removal of individuals on a large enough scale affects the population we are harvesting (both in numbers and physical traits) but I would NOT go saying *hunting* is absolutely driving evolution based on two studies of roughly 30 years length.
As a hunter and biologist this article was bugging me but I can rest at peace now.
http://people.ucsc.edu/~darimont/publications/Darimont et al 2009 Human predators.pdf
(is it cool to post the link mods? Modify as needed.)
There is a mixed bag of truth here. Much media hype about 'hunting' pressure when only 2 of the 29 species included in the analysis are hunted (but 21 of 29 are fished) so yes hunters are unfairly taking the heat for the whole deal when really this is a 'fish' article with a handfull of other species thrown in to make it seem well rounded. Flip side is, their analysis (based on the data available) is accurate. So yes human removal of individuals on a large enough scale affects the population we are harvesting (both in numbers and physical traits) but I would NOT go saying *hunting* is absolutely driving evolution based on two studies of roughly 30 years length.
As a hunter and biologist this article was bugging me but I can rest at peace now.
Thanks for the link jaydog,
I think its less the study than the article slandering hunters that makes me shake my head.
Couple this with the fact, as jaydog has stated, that the study is almost exclusively of fish, I have to ask.......:
Why does the word hunting appear in almost every paragraph of the original article, while commercial fishing is mentioned but once?
I think its less the study than the article slandering hunters that makes me shake my head.
Couple this with the fact, as jaydog has stated, that the study is almost exclusively of fish, I have to ask.......:
Why does the word hunting appear in almost every paragraph of the original article, while commercial fishing is mentioned but once?
A different take on this issue.
(I used Whitetail deer for this example, hence referance to tine count, but I think it could be substituted for what ever you guage the size of an animal with like trophy and full curl for sheep)
Where i grew up 5x5 whitetails where kinda the norm in that area. Even young deer had nice 5x5 frames and to see 4x4 was kinda the exception. Now with everyone wanting a 5x5 buck a younger 5x5 (say 3 and a half) would be taken over a more mature 4x4. Thus letting the 4x4 gene become more dominant. Now around there (28 years later) it is harder to find a big mature 5x5 than it is to find big mature 4x4 as well as a lot of the younger deer have only 4x4 frames. Now what the article said I don't agree with a good buck will spread his gene's at whatever age he breeds a doe. But by selecting 5x5's (younger ones as well as older ones) over 4x4's I am convinced there is potential to put a strain (not necessarily wipe out completely) on the gene of 5x5 whitetail deer.
(I used Whitetail deer for this example, hence referance to tine count, but I think it could be substituted for what ever you guage the size of an animal with like trophy and full curl for sheep)
Where i grew up 5x5 whitetails where kinda the norm in that area. Even young deer had nice 5x5 frames and to see 4x4 was kinda the exception. Now with everyone wanting a 5x5 buck a younger 5x5 (say 3 and a half) would be taken over a more mature 4x4. Thus letting the 4x4 gene become more dominant. Now around there (28 years later) it is harder to find a big mature 5x5 than it is to find big mature 4x4 as well as a lot of the younger deer have only 4x4 frames. Now what the article said I don't agree with a good buck will spread his gene's at whatever age he breeds a doe. But by selecting 5x5's (younger ones as well as older ones) over 4x4's I am convinced there is potential to put a strain (not necessarily wipe out completely) on the gene of 5x5 whitetail deer.
this also speaks to the STUPID idea that ALL FEMALES WANT TO MATE, esp with the dominate male- years ago i watched a small elk herd-( no gun, dammit) going through the rut- there was one particularly large female- what we would call a 10 in our language- and every time the dominate male came close, she would find some position in which he couldn't mount her- in other words she was saying no- about a couple of hours later, a much younger male, and much smaller, started to nuzzel her, and they went off together- this time she was receptive- the dominate male thing holds for the majority, not the entire herd
^^^^ I agree
I used to keep sheep, we had three rams and about 50 ewes. When it came time to turn the rams out for breeding the two older, more aggressive rams beat the crap out of each other for a day while the young ram avoided the fighting and ran around breeding the ewes that were in heat.
I used to keep sheep, we had three rams and about 50 ewes. When it came time to turn the rams out for breeding the two older, more aggressive rams beat the crap out of each other for a day while the young ram avoided the fighting and ran around breeding the ewes that were in heat.
The media are out to sell a product so will write anything to catch your attention. Here is the real journal article:
http://people.ucsc.edu/~darimont/publications/Darimont et al 2009 Human predators.pdf
(is it cool to post the link mods? Modify as needed.)
There is a mixed bag of truth here. Much media hype about 'hunting' pressure when only 2 of the 29 species included in the analysis are hunted (but 21 of 29 are fished) so yes hunters are unfairly taking the heat for the whole deal when really this is a 'fish' article with a handfull of other species thrown in to make it seem well rounded. Flip side is, their analysis (based on the data available) is accurate. So yes human removal of individuals on a large enough scale affects the population we are harvesting (both in numbers and physical traits) but I would NOT go saying *hunting* is absolutely driving evolution based on two studies of roughly 30 years length.
As a hunter and biologist this article was bugging me but I can rest at peace now.
Yes this goes back to a previous post about so called "journalists".Thanks for pointing this out.
I often wondered, while trapping marine or land based fur bearers if I (we) were changing the evolution of animals?.
Competition for hides was fierce around here, considering traplines are based on private property permission.
To date, I've seen no change in the diminishing size or numbers of animals.
In fact coyotes are getting bigger and bolder, and may be having a negative impact on the deer population.
So I'm doing all I can to change their evolution, and filling them with as much lead as possible, but know it's not easy.
Competition for hides was fierce around here, considering traplines are based on private property permission.
To date, I've seen no change in the diminishing size or numbers of animals.
In fact coyotes are getting bigger and bolder, and may be having a negative impact on the deer population.
So I'm doing all I can to change their evolution, and filling them with as much lead as possible, but know it's not easy.
Last edited:
treebutcher
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
After thinking about this for a while. I think that the hunters are improving the whitetail herd. Most hunters that I know are guys that work and can only hunt Saturday and the odd evening. Most of us that harvest deer will pick off the spike horns and smaller bucks. The larger deer (trophys) will quickly adapt to the hunting pressure and avoid getting shot. I have taken alot of pics with my trail cam of nothing but black, on trails that have good sign. I also have seen some nice bucks, but not in huntable areas. There is a reason that countless books are written about out smarting the unhuntable buck. Hunting is the same as any pressure on the whitetail the dumb and slow get taken first and the smartest live. My 2 cents worth.
I think that you and a lot of the posters on here think there is an anti hunter behind every tree.
I don't see this article as being anti hunter at all. It states some information that is what it is. You may agree with it or disagree with it or not understand it.
It is a fairly straight forward Theory (if not a "law") of any selective breeding programs, that is you select and remove certian charicteristics from the breeding animals that charicteristic will be reduced and eventually removed from the population.
I think you misunderstand the sheep situation.
Lets say there are four rams on a mountain and they are all the same age (we'll say 6 years old) but three are 4/5s curl and one (the runt) is not.
The three may get shot and not be able to father any lambs. But the runt who has not been able to grow 4/5s by age of 6 will be able to father lambs.
In a few years there will likely be 4 rams on the mountain all six years old, 2 are 4/5s and two are not yet (sons of the runt)
I see your point here Duffy, but the B&C record book shows the opposite trend as the study does, especially with Bighorn sheep which are hunted moreso than Dalls and Stones. Same with elk, seems to be a new world record every few years as of late. We are living in one of the great times to kill a big critter within most species....This seems polar opposite from what the study is claiming?
I would be curious to hear what the author of this paper would say looking through a record book? It is a longer, more indepth study than his over a broader range of Big game animals.
I do however agree with his thesis on fish populations. Just look at how togh it is to catch a 50+ pound spring Salmon compared to 15 years ago.
Last edited:
A big difference looking at the B&C book over what is going on on "some" mountains.
There are some duristictions where a ram has to be full curl to be a legal animal. Those rams have past on their genetics before they are killed off. Places where the legal ram is 3/4 curl or 4/5 curl are the ones where good genes can be "weeded out".
Also there are areas now where rams are on a draw and only so many rams get harvested each year (good big rams). There are a good number of rams left in the area to keep a more natural genetic mix.
In Alberta most areas are over the counter permits for any ram over 4/5 curl.
The rams get croped off pretty good as soon as they reach 4/5.
I haven't looked at where the recent rams going into the book are coming from. If you take out the Minister's permit rams and rams from special draw areas, are there many coming from general areas in Alberta?
There are some duristictions where a ram has to be full curl to be a legal animal. Those rams have past on their genetics before they are killed off. Places where the legal ram is 3/4 curl or 4/5 curl are the ones where good genes can be "weeded out".
Also there are areas now where rams are on a draw and only so many rams get harvested each year (good big rams). There are a good number of rams left in the area to keep a more natural genetic mix.
In Alberta most areas are over the counter permits for any ram over 4/5 curl.
The rams get croped off pretty good as soon as they reach 4/5.
I haven't looked at where the recent rams going into the book are coming from. If you take out the Minister's permit rams and rams from special draw areas, are there many coming from general areas in Alberta?
If you don't think we are being deluged with well financed anti hunting propaganda, you better wake up. (Or maybe you don't understand it!)
Here is part of the last newsletter report from our BC Wildlife Federation.
Having just told one list member that I normally don't editorialize on these ALERTs I am about to do so.
It appears to me that we are increasingly seeing new and much more sophisticated attacks on hunting in North America. We have recently had one that attempts to make the point that anyone eating wild game is in danger of suffering from lead poisoning and now this one, done by at least some of the usual suspects which will no doubt be used across North America in an attack against hunting.
Unless we become increasingly involved in this debate it is clear that hunting and fishing as we know it will - if not disappear completely - be severely curtailed.
We have organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) waging very public anti-fishing and anti-hunting campaigns. They cannot be ignored as they are heavily funded organizations and have already inserted their animal rights philosophies into all areas of politics and public debate in the North America.
There are anti-gun groups everywhere that are working to make gun ownership more and more difficult, if not impossible, for anyone who isn't in the military or the police. The anti-hunters buy into this completely as anything that makes gun ownership more difficult will also reflect on the number of people that go hunting.
In Canada we are only a heartbeat away from a complete ban on handguns and possibly all semi-auto firearms. In the U.S., even with the recent constitutional win in their Supreme Court affirming the right to bear arms, anti-gun people are salivating over the incoming administration which they feel will be sympathetic to their cause.
Government negotiations with First Nations have proceeded behind closed doors with no input from hunting and fishing organizations regarding resident's needs and requirements and in the end we find that they have cut us out of another piece of the resource.
There seems to be the feeling that either the government simply wouldn't do anything that will adversely affect us or alternatively that individually there is nothing that can be done to stop the process. Both opinions are wrong. If gun owners en masse had gotten off their hands early in the process I have no doubt that we could have stopped Bill C-68 in its tracks. But that didn't happen. Too many thought that someone else would take care of the interests.
The solution is not anything new. When issues arise you must make your views known to your elected politicians. If you don't educate them, no-one will. And it can't be a one-shot deal. It is a continuing process.
All of that was generated by the following article on a study which lumps non-commercial hunting in with the commercial disasters such as the cod overfishing on the east coast. It just reaches the point where 'enough is enough'.
-------------------
John Holdstock, the writer of this, then prints the article we are talking about.
treebutcher
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Again I think H4831 is right on. If you think of any hunted game how often is every trophy animal taken during season? The game we hunt adapts and patterns us every time we go out. Therefore the smarter, stronger will evade us. If this affects horn development I don't know, and don't care. The better animal will live. DNR controls the amount of animals that can be harvested so that we will not over pressure game. Some areas of my province are suffering from not enough hunting. DNR are worried about over population because the whitetail population is booming. People who live in this area dont like the deer but like hunters even less. Nobody is writing about how more hunters are needed to keep the population under control.
We live in a bloodless age, meat comes in plastic and nobody wants to admit were it comes from. If hunters don't think we are under attack then we are fooling ourselves.
We live in a bloodless age, meat comes in plastic and nobody wants to admit were it comes from. If hunters don't think we are under attack then we are fooling ourselves.
