-
- Species
- Whitetails
- Rut Reporters
- Deer Camp
- Big Game
- Small Game
- Birds
- Special Methods
- Bow Hunting
- Conservation
- Heroes of Conservation
- Hero for a Day
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
- Land for Sale
-
- Species
- Bass
- Trout
- More Freshwater
- Saltwater
- Catchbook
- Special Methods
- Fly Fishing
- Hook Shots
- Conservation
- Heroes of Conservation
- Hero for a Day
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
- Land for Sale
-
- Health & Fitness
- F&S Adventurer
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
-
- Rifles
- Shotguns
- 2nd Amendment
- SHOT Show
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
Unnatural Selection
Recent Comments
- AmberGreg on Camo Weddings (23)
- TracyDaniels on Camo Weddings (23)
- news on A Male Perspective (9)
- mschaefers on Hunting While Pregnant (1)
- Roger@Vieranas-... on Aim for the Cure (12)
Categories
- Big Game Hunting (1)
- Bird Hunting (1)
- Deer Hunting (1)
- Fishing (3)
- Guns (1)
- Hunting (38)
- Small Game (1)
Recent Posts
Archives
Syndicate
FSHuntress
in your Inbox
January 15, 2009
Unnatural Selection
By Kim Hiss
First of all, welcome to the new FSHuntress page on the new Field & Stream site! I apologize for the brief "service outage" while we got switched over, but we're back in the saddle now. I'd say these are certainly brighter and more spacious quarters than our old ones, so I think we'll settle in here just fine.
Now, onto the news, where this National Geographic article is reporting on a study that found hunting to "speed up" evolution in game species such as bighorn sheep and caribou, resulting in smaller animals.
The study, led by Chris Darimont, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, looked at 29 mammal, fish, and plant species that are hunted or harvested by humans. It found that the rate of evolution among what it collectively termed "harvested organisms" was 300 percent faster than in "natural" systems. In addition, trends toward smaller body size occurred 50 percent faster due to hunting than as a result of other human-caused factors like habitat destruction and pollution. Among bighorn sheep in particular, body and horn sizes were found to have declined by 20 percent over the past three decades.
The study is clear that these evolutionary changes are brought about more by human hunters than other stressors such as pollution or habitat loss. The story also pointed out that humans hunt at a higher rate than other predators such as sharks or wolves. It's little surprise, then, that the paper's lead author calls for a decrease in trophy hunting, which removes larger animals from a population's gene pool.
Now I'm no trophy hunter, but of course I'd be lying if I didn't say I at least 'tended towards' larger animals. And I'm certainly no scientist. But I'm interested in the assertion that hunting outperforms environmental stressors like pollution and habitat loss when it comes to altering the evolutionary patterns of certain game species. That's quite a claim. And if it's true, what's to be done about it? More regulations? Or do we need to look at a few more studies? K.H.
ADVERTISEMENT
Today on Field & Stream
Loading...
Visit Our Sister Sites at Bonnier Corporation
| Enthusiast | Kiteboarding | QUAD | SKI | Skiing | Scuba Diving | Sport Diver | TransWorld Ride BMX | TransWorld Business | TransWorld Motocross | TransWorld SKATEboarding, | TransWorld SNOWboarding | TransWorld SURF | WakeBoarding | WaterSki | Warren Miller Entertainment | WindSurfing |
|---|---|
| Travel | Caribbean Travel & Life | Destination Weddings & Honeymoon | Islands | Meeting Traveler | Resorts & Great Hotels |
| Lifestyle & Shelter | Florida Travel & Life | Garden Design | Home Ft. Lauderdale | Home Miami |
| Luxury | SNOW | Spa |
| Marine | Boating Life | Cruising World | Fly Fishing in Salt Waters | Power Cruising | Marlin | Motor Boating | Sailing World | Salt Water Sportsman | Sport Fishing | Yachting | NewBoats.com | UsedBoats.com | YachtBroker.com |
| Outdoor | Field & Stream | Outdoor Life | SHOT Business |
| Parenting | Babytalk | Parenting |
| Science | Popular Science | Science Illustrated |
| Saveur | Saveur |
| Working Mother Media | Working Mother |
| Entertainment / Events | World Entertainment Services | World Sports & Marketing |
Fieldandstream.com is part of the Field & Stream Network, a division of Bonnier Corporation.
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Comments (16)
That article is similar to one a week ago that was on the Newsweek website. Both articles are against hunting and have no real research to support their reasoning.
consider the source: national geographic has never been supportive of hunters...
Yesterday was different. Tommorrow will be different. Evolution goes on. If we stop evolving, we're through. For anyone to think that we control evolution, through hunting, it's ludicrous. Most of the species that we hunt have average lifespans of between one and three years. The primary causes of mortality for all species, is NOT hunting. If whitetail deer could evolve, because of human activity, they would stop being hit by cars.
I think that many people get confused when the word "evolution" is used for anything. Usually, when we think of evolution, we think of "macro-evolution", which is the change of one kind of animal to another (dinosaur to bird, for instance). Macro-evolution has never been observed, therefore disqualifying it as being "scientific". "Micro-evolution" is the small changes within a kind of animal. For instance, the wolf and the coyote probably had a common ancestor. We can observe micro-evolution. This being said, i do not think is what is occurring with the sheep. If you read the article, it says that it is resulting in "smaller and YOUNGER" animals. I think that is where the major size difference is coming into play. This can be easily solved through proper management, considering there really is a problem and Nat Geo just wasn't bashing hunters for the fun of it. Sorry for the long comment. Happy trophy hunting!!!
Statistics are meaningless unless one understands the data, the basic assumptions, the control, where the date came from, what was trying to be proved, and who compiled the data. Someone else could have proved something entirely different based on the same or different data.
I hate to say it but I think this is just another example of a non-hunting group trying to put reasons into other non-hunters heads about why hunting is "bad" and should be more regulated. Experiments and studies can show whatever the scientist/researcher wants it to show.
Here in PA, many people complain about the antler restrictions that have been put in place which say that a deer needs to have at least 3 points on one side- eliminating many spike and fork bucks being harvested. I haven't been hunting for a long period of time, but many things that I read say that bigger bucks are being seen and harvested because of the restrictions. I know this is a touchy subject, but it seems like here in PA the "evolution" NatGeo is talking about must be working backwards!
Evolution is a strange thing because it generally takes a long time before any changes are really seen or understood. Hunting may have some impact but I would think loss of habitat may be more of a problem because nutrition plays a large part in the sizes of animals and not just their antlers/horns etc. Look at the sizes of some of the large Texas whitetails where habitat management has been in place and you will see, kind of, what I mean. We seem to be seeing larger animals in a lot of different places, even areas where there is not nutrition management like in Texas, so it may be more of a "location" thing than hunting that affects the animals.
natgeo would love to see all hunting abolished even though a lot of the places they visit are inhabited by people who have to hunt just to live. if they think that hunting is causing the evolution of smaller animals, wait until hunting is stopped and these animals have to compete even more just to eat. the lack of food and the abundance of disease will cause much smaller animals and more suffering and dead animals. no anti hunting group has ever been able to dispute this and have no answer for why more animals are being killed by traffic than before.
Just another "Anti-Hunting" article. I'm not saying that because I'm a Hunter, the author of the article isn't making any solid facts towards their opinion. That's just what it is, their opinion, which they can keep. I couldn't tell you how many articles I've read that bash hunters for taking the Big Healthy Trophy Animals over the sick and weak that wolves, etc., would pick off. I think, now this is just my opinion, but if the study is true about the animals getting smaller I would take a guess that it's because of the habitat destruction that is taking place in increasing amounts. Now there's a good subject to study.
This is just another example of correlation between events. In Criminology, they discuss the pattern that there are more crimes commited when ice cream sales increase. Making the connections is false, because one has nothing to do with the other, except that it is summer at both times in most cases. The fact that the species are not getting as large may have something to do with more harvest, but it probably has more to do with the fact that food has been scarce in most areas for the past years.
While I do not push for trophy hunting, I have to agree with Kim, I do tend to wait in case a bigger one comes along. But, as my dad says, you can't eat the horns and the meat will taste the same, so in the end, a large doe is usually taken no matter what. However, that still leaves me to look for the largest doe.
The restrictions in PA Sarah mentioned would help herd growth and allow for bigger animals, but it would probably also cause for shortage of food if too many animals are in a particular area. There are many things to consider when these sort of event take place, some organizations just like to blame the hunters first.
I would love to see the data, especially the control groups. As Katie said this seems more correlation than reasearch. Evolution is a long process. Deer have been managed on south Texas ranches for years for age and size. They are shot at maturity. This gives them a chance to add thier genetic to the overall population. I don't think any one would conclude that said deer are getting smaller!
Heavy hunting pressure can produce limited numbers of mature animals. That is the result of high grading the herd not evolution.
Nat Geo has depended on increasingly shoddy research to sell magazines as of late. They have also been forced to apologize a number of times in recent years...
The data has got to be on other species that whitetail deer in Illinois. Every year more are harvested and yet more deer and larger deer take there place. Being an animal scientist by background I would like to see how the study was set and what parameters were in the study criteria.
The data has got to be on other species than whitetail deer in Illinois. Every year more are harvested and yet more deer and larger deer take their place. Being an animal scientist by background I would like to see how the study was set and what parameters were in the study criteria. (Sorry for the typing errors)
The study referenced is from a evolutionary biologist, not a wildlife biologist. I wont rehash all the previous comments regarding wildlife management, except to say that the deer getting hit by cars remark was right on.
Post a Comment
I think that many people get confused when the word "evolution" is used for anything. Usually, when we think of evolution, we think of "macro-evolution", which is the change of one kind of animal to another (dinosaur to bird, for instance). Macro-evolution has never been observed, therefore disqualifying it as being "scientific". "Micro-evolution" is the small changes within a kind of animal. For instance, the wolf and the coyote probably had a common ancestor. We can observe micro-evolution. This being said, i do not think is what is occurring with the sheep. If you read the article, it says that it is resulting in "smaller and YOUNGER" animals. I think that is where the major size difference is coming into play. This can be easily solved through proper management, considering there really is a problem and Nat Geo just wasn't bashing hunters for the fun of it. Sorry for the long comment. Happy trophy hunting!!!
natgeo would love to see all hunting abolished even though a lot of the places they visit are inhabited by people who have to hunt just to live. if they think that hunting is causing the evolution of smaller animals, wait until hunting is stopped and these animals have to compete even more just to eat. the lack of food and the abundance of disease will cause much smaller animals and more suffering and dead animals. no anti hunting group has ever been able to dispute this and have no answer for why more animals are being killed by traffic than before.
That article is similar to one a week ago that was on the Newsweek website. Both articles are against hunting and have no real research to support their reasoning.
consider the source: national geographic has never been supportive of hunters...
Yesterday was different. Tommorrow will be different. Evolution goes on. If we stop evolving, we're through. For anyone to think that we control evolution, through hunting, it's ludicrous. Most of the species that we hunt have average lifespans of between one and three years. The primary causes of mortality for all species, is NOT hunting. If whitetail deer could evolve, because of human activity, they would stop being hit by cars.
Statistics are meaningless unless one understands the data, the basic assumptions, the control, where the date came from, what was trying to be proved, and who compiled the data. Someone else could have proved something entirely different based on the same or different data.
I hate to say it but I think this is just another example of a non-hunting group trying to put reasons into other non-hunters heads about why hunting is "bad" and should be more regulated. Experiments and studies can show whatever the scientist/researcher wants it to show.
Here in PA, many people complain about the antler restrictions that have been put in place which say that a deer needs to have at least 3 points on one side- eliminating many spike and fork bucks being harvested. I haven't been hunting for a long period of time, but many things that I read say that bigger bucks are being seen and harvested because of the restrictions. I know this is a touchy subject, but it seems like here in PA the "evolution" NatGeo is talking about must be working backwards!
Evolution is a strange thing because it generally takes a long time before any changes are really seen or understood. Hunting may have some impact but I would think loss of habitat may be more of a problem because nutrition plays a large part in the sizes of animals and not just their antlers/horns etc. Look at the sizes of some of the large Texas whitetails where habitat management has been in place and you will see, kind of, what I mean. We seem to be seeing larger animals in a lot of different places, even areas where there is not nutrition management like in Texas, so it may be more of a "location" thing than hunting that affects the animals.
Just another "Anti-Hunting" article. I'm not saying that because I'm a Hunter, the author of the article isn't making any solid facts towards their opinion. That's just what it is, their opinion, which they can keep. I couldn't tell you how many articles I've read that bash hunters for taking the Big Healthy Trophy Animals over the sick and weak that wolves, etc., would pick off. I think, now this is just my opinion, but if the study is true about the animals getting smaller I would take a guess that it's because of the habitat destruction that is taking place in increasing amounts. Now there's a good subject to study.
This is just another example of correlation between events. In Criminology, they discuss the pattern that there are more crimes commited when ice cream sales increase. Making the connections is false, because one has nothing to do with the other, except that it is summer at both times in most cases. The fact that the species are not getting as large may have something to do with more harvest, but it probably has more to do with the fact that food has been scarce in most areas for the past years.
While I do not push for trophy hunting, I have to agree with Kim, I do tend to wait in case a bigger one comes along. But, as my dad says, you can't eat the horns and the meat will taste the same, so in the end, a large doe is usually taken no matter what. However, that still leaves me to look for the largest doe.
The restrictions in PA Sarah mentioned would help herd growth and allow for bigger animals, but it would probably also cause for shortage of food if too many animals are in a particular area. There are many things to consider when these sort of event take place, some organizations just like to blame the hunters first.
I would love to see the data, especially the control groups. As Katie said this seems more correlation than reasearch. Evolution is a long process. Deer have been managed on south Texas ranches for years for age and size. They are shot at maturity. This gives them a chance to add thier genetic to the overall population. I don't think any one would conclude that said deer are getting smaller!
Heavy hunting pressure can produce limited numbers of mature animals. That is the result of high grading the herd not evolution.
Nat Geo has depended on increasingly shoddy research to sell magazines as of late. They have also been forced to apologize a number of times in recent years...
The data has got to be on other species that whitetail deer in Illinois. Every year more are harvested and yet more deer and larger deer take there place. Being an animal scientist by background I would like to see how the study was set and what parameters were in the study criteria.
The data has got to be on other species than whitetail deer in Illinois. Every year more are harvested and yet more deer and larger deer take their place. Being an animal scientist by background I would like to see how the study was set and what parameters were in the study criteria. (Sorry for the typing errors)
The study referenced is from a evolutionary biologist, not a wildlife biologist. I wont rehash all the previous comments regarding wildlife management, except to say that the deer getting hit by cars remark was right on.
Post a Comment