Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mistermj who wrote (15728)	8/12/2007 5:31:47 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Before I'd google much on the subject, I'd need you to clearly state your own views. Mine are as follows: 1) Hunting has resulted in negative selection pressure wrt to trophy specimens. That is hunting, by targeting the premium examples of a species, has resulted in the species decline wrt to whatever it is that hunting considers "premium". An example is tusk size in elephants. 2) In heavily hunted species such as Mule deer, hunting results in a population having a lower average age than would be the case for a non-hunted population. In the case of species with any trophy metric such as antler or horn size which increases with age, this results in the population have a lower average of that metric. Thus hunting has a tendency to drive trophy metrics lower for both of the above reasons. If you could state your opinion on the above two items, and frame concisely your own view on the subject, we could then do some research and see who seems to have science on their side. However, if you can't frame your opinion concisely to start with, past experience has taught me to avoid discussing things with you.