Interesting study

Here is an interesting study I found in the NY times, I will try to find the actual paper published later this week.  Might have some implications for the way we manage deer here in the keystone state and wildlife in general around the nation.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/science/13fish.html?_r=2&ref=science 

Good read MM..Wish our fish and game were managed by science and not politics....
 
Good arguement for not taking the biggest doe out of the herd all the time....
 
Almost like high ending a piece of timber..You can only do it so many times before you are left with crap...

I also saw that in times magazine.  Personally I think the study is a joke, and the scientist also stated  he knew there would be questions about the analytical methods he and his fellow researchers used"

After reading the artical, The only thing I can agree with is that their analytical methods are very flawed and will certainly be questioned by the scientific community.  For one, you can't take a population of bighorn sheep in one region that isn't hunted and compare it to another single population of bighorn sheep that is not hunted.  There are a million other variables that could influence the size of horns on sheep beside hunting pressure.  This example violates numerous rules in basic experimental design, specifically the lack of replication.  The only valid conclustion they can make from that is that population A has larger horns than Pop B.  In addition, the scientist also stated that fish species that are commercially caught have had declines in size and reduced age of sexual maturity.  This is also biased considering that fish species that are typically sampled are commercially caught because it is easy to sample them.  A scientist can just sit on the dock and wait for a fishing vessel.  My point is: If a scientist goes out and finds that there is a reduction in size and a age for sexual maturity among fish commercially caught, one cannot automatically make the conclusion that commercial fishing is causing this.  In fact, this study (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7461.full) also looks at commercially caught fish and concludes that these trends are likley related to climate change rather than commercial fishing.  I realize that people can be critical of things they do not agree with, but this is garbage and poor science.  Probably why it is in Times rather than a wildlife journal.     

Did you read the paper or just the abstract?  The paper concluded that havested species shows higher rates of phenotypic change by comparing 40 "harvested species" (fish, ungulates, invertebrates, and plants), to "natural populations" (galapagos finches) and "other" anthropogenic phenotypic changes (guppies).  Based on the findings that the rates of change in phenotypic traits of hunted species  are greater than natural rates of galapagos finches and guppies, they concluded that this was due to harvesting.  Based on the methodology used in this study I would say it is a very poor study and does little to support their findings.  If they used closley related species in a similar enviroment, the species would be subjected to similar selection pressures and the results may have more merit.  They may have not come up with this in their garage, but not far from it.   

What is it that you do again?  Perhaps you use some practice instead of arguing something you havn't read.  If you get paid to analyze and review studies, lets have your review on this study and why you believe this is sound conclusion.  Also in case you havn't realized this study has been the topic of discussion among many anti hunting groups.  This has nothing to do with PGC policy to me.  The fact is someone came up with some study that is a bunch of BS and used it to write a negative impact about hunting and fishing.  The average joe reads this article in times magazine and has no idea how the study was conducted or the methods used and believes it.  That is what irritates me.  Again, since you are a seasoned vet on analyzing studies please enlighten me on the logic they used to arrive at this conclusion.  I don't even think I could consider their conclusion a stretch, its out in right field.