RE: Interesting study
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.