|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 2, 2016, 02:13 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 11, 2006
Posts: 154
|
Bergmann's "Rule" or genetics?
Ok, I see the point of what Bergmann said. Darwinism says, essentially the same thing. But there are some holes in this "rule," regarding different species other than white tail. But massive bucks have been killed in the Midwest, that are equally as big or bigger than that in Canada. So are genetics the key to massive bucks or does Bergmann's rule stand true?
__________________
{ Ceteris Paribus } You know that your ignorance is stupidity, when you're getting responses to your post starting with, IT SEEMS TO ME, LIKE ALL THESE NEW GUYS THINK... |
September 2, 2016, 02:27 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,308
|
That is like what came first, the chicken or the egg.
If larger animals survive better in colder climates, it makes sense that the genetically smaller groups will eventually go away, but not so in warmer climates. It also has to do with drought and minerals to some extent. If pressed, I would think Bergmann's rule is a theory. |
September 2, 2016, 02:42 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 11, 2006
Posts: 154
|
The theory may have some veracity to it. But would a transported white tail from northern Canada, placed in South Carolina, produce a monster white tail? Then what about Sitka deer? Their body mass is relatively small by comparison. Though it's a northern species deer.
__________________
{ Ceteris Paribus } You know that your ignorance is stupidity, when you're getting responses to your post starting with, IT SEEMS TO ME, LIKE ALL THESE NEW GUYS THINK... |
September 2, 2016, 03:27 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,809
|
The mid west is a lot farther north than GA or FL. There are lots of places in the south where a deer over 100 lbs on the hoof is huge, many in South Florida well under 50 lbs. Genetics and nutrition are factors too. The North GA mountain deer have to work a lot harder for food than the middle GA deer 150 miles to the south that live in the agricultural belt.
75 years ago there were few deer here. Many were trapped in TX and released, others came from Wisconsin. The TX deer can have decent racks, but tend to be small bodied while the Wisconsin deer tend to be the opposite. The middle GA deer and those with Wisconsin bloodlines tend to be much larger even though they live farther south. Generally speaking, if all other factors are the same the rule applies. But there are always exceptions. |
September 2, 2016, 05:16 PM | #5 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
Bergman's rule is generally correct. But I don't see how nutrition can be ignored: Farm areas vs. wild-only foods.
|
September 2, 2016, 06:01 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 11, 2006
Posts: 154
|
I get a nutritional environment, would play a key role in body mass and antler growth. The few high fenced ranches, I've been to, have proven that many times over. It's like juicing for deer. But, wouldn't genetics play a role in this? When you compare a Canadian white tail, to a Texan white tail, it's easy to see a relation. Just not the same critter. If the two were switched, I don't know how well the Canadian would do in 100+ heat daily and vise versa, with the Texan in -20 temps.
BTW, What happened to JamesK? He always has an opinion on my ridiculous questions.
__________________
{ Ceteris Paribus } You know that your ignorance is stupidity, when you're getting responses to your post starting with, IT SEEMS TO ME, LIKE ALL THESE NEW GUYS THINK... |
September 2, 2016, 08:28 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
There are many influences on how a given animal develops - environment, resources, genetics, disease, injury, and even fortune. You can be the biggest, baddest buck in the forest, but if you get struck by lightning, or maybe lived on the side of Mt. St. Helen's just before it blew, you will no longer be passing on your genetic material.
Bergmann's rule isn't an absolute (nor is it claimed to be). What people believe is "Darwinism" isn't an absolute.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
September 2, 2016, 09:31 PM | #8 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,846
|
I think to make a fair comparison, you'll need to compare mature deer of both sexes receiving similar types of nutrition. The "genetic" trend to bigger body size would/might be more noticeable if those Canadian deer got the calorie intake that Midwest farm country deer get.
|
September 3, 2016, 10:18 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
|
Deer travel a lot more than you think (Or Outdoor writers thought 30 years ago)). But, there are certain areas where you can actually see genetic traits. I still hunt one mountain that the majority of bucks have no brow tines no mater how big they get. That same mountain has a lot of doe with very short tails. A mountain over and you rarely see that in the deer. The outdoors changes fast. By the time someone is done with a study, it may not even be worth anything.
"The biggest, baddest, buck in the forest". I used to live in a farm/wooded area and saw deer interaction all the time. Sometimes Darwin is wrong. I have seen small 6-8 point bucks run off bucks with bigger racks and body size. I hate to get "Animal rights" sounding, but deer are individuals, just like dogs. Last edited by Gunplummer; September 3, 2016 at 10:25 AM. |
September 3, 2016, 11:19 AM | #10 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
I only know from reading, but I have read that some northern deer (Bucks only? I don't recall.) were brought to a Texas game ranch. Within a generation or few, no lasting effect on size was seen.
One can only speculate. |
September 3, 2016, 12:05 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2014
Posts: 645
|
When they brought the Wisconsin deer to Louisiana they were called "blue" deer. I never understood that. Does anybody here know the reason?
|
September 3, 2016, 01:34 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 11, 2006
Posts: 154
|
Boogershooter,
I just read an article about "Blue Deer" from Wisconsin. Apparently in the 60's and 70's, Wisconsin transported a small to medium size herd, to Louisiana. The "Blue Buck" term, comes from their fall to winter coat. It's bluish grey color. Spring and summer coats stay a reddish brown. I've also read where some had some really dark antlers, as well as, some even were palmated. Like Fallow or moose.
__________________
{ Ceteris Paribus } You know that your ignorance is stupidity, when you're getting responses to your post starting with, IT SEEMS TO ME, LIKE ALL THESE NEW GUYS THINK... Last edited by .50cal packer; September 3, 2016 at 03:36 PM. |
September 3, 2016, 03:42 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
|
|
September 4, 2016, 02:34 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
|
The closest town to where I lived in the farm/wooded area was named LIMEPORT. People I knew that lived in other counties with a lot of farms would see a lot of big racks too(At night during the rut). I am going to go with feed as the major changer for deer.
|
September 4, 2016, 11:35 AM | #15 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
I've been transplanted to tropical environments twice. 120+ and humid. In both cases my body shrunk fast to the point I was changing my diet drastically to increase caloric intake. At one point I was eating a fried chicken sandwich for breakfast every day along with another fried boneless breast many afternoons and still losing weight. Regulating temperature takes a massive number of calories and any insulation makes it worse. Most people also lose appetite when over-heated.
Have you ever noticed all the giants in China now? Genes that were not removed over time because growth was limited by nutrition is my thought. It is amazing to meet a family where the parents are small framed and only a smidge over 5', but all the kids are around 6' medium frame, which is very common in Asia now. My question is, what happens when you take a small southern deer's genes and throw it into midwestern corn fields for a few generations? |
September 4, 2016, 12:41 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2014
Posts: 645
|
Thanks 50cal.
|
September 5, 2016, 12:53 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
|
Many years ago I went to the Smithsonian Institute. The military uniforms were a lesson. You can actually see the size change through the wars.
|
September 5, 2016, 01:50 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
|
|
September 5, 2016, 09:34 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
|
I don't buy that. Some of the farm areas around here were pretty isolated for years. People stayed in their area. I am a big guy, but the amount of bigger guys in these areas is very easily seen. For the most part they are healthy. The oddball diseases and disorders started when the world got smaller for them. None of the theories involving genetics seems to fit. The Amish communities are rampant with blood disorders and who knows what else. You mentioned dogs. The more that dogs are interbred to "Improve" the breed, the more problems those dogs have, both physically and mentally. I still say feed is the key with bigger deer, but certain physical traits are genetic.
|
September 6, 2016, 07:46 AM | #20 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|||
September 6, 2016, 10:27 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
Food and health does play a big part of the overall size of deer within their genetic sub-species, but it does not explain why deer in certain Northern Latitudes have a overall larger average body size, even tho food is only readily available for a short amount of time and the harsh winters make it difficult to stay healthy and find water that is necessary for them to live. This is where Bergmann's rule comes into play, along with evolution. Larger body size means less surface to mass ratio and less heat loss......thus larger bodied animals stay warmer in cold weather and vice versa. This is why are Key deer so small, when they have great weather and available food/water all year round. Their small bodies lose heat more rapidly and thus, they stay cooler which is more important in their environment than staying warm. Same goes for Texas deer. One could force feed a buck Key Deer all the food and minerals it could stand, and still not end up with a deer that weighs as much as a Wisconsin Buck. Yes this is genetics, but genetics that have been formed thru evolution. Now one can assume that with the advent of deer farming, the transporting of deer all over the country for breeding and genetics, that many of the evolutionary traits of the local deer herds will be lost. Look at what's happening out West with the interbreeding of whitetail and mule deer. |
|
September 6, 2016, 05:00 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
|
I blame boys and girls maturing earlier on a lot more chemicals they are exposed to in food and the water. The only thing I saw happen from trying to move and breed large deer is CWD in this state. I remember the huge rabies outbreak here in the north east. Raccoons brought up from down south and stocked by coon hunters. Rarely does anything good come from "Giving nature a hand".
|
September 7, 2016, 10:34 AM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
|
|
September 7, 2016, 01:13 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2014
Posts: 645
|
Since this thread started I've done alot of googling and talked to some of the higher educated people in my family. I'm going to try to keep this short because I have limited knowledge and can't explain it all in detail.
From what I've read there are 16 subspecies of deer. Some say more some say less but that is the overall consensus. In the same article one person said that in Virginia alone they restocked with 11 different subspecies of whitetail. But after all the reading I've done it boils back down to the size and structure of the deer is bound by food and weather in that area. DNA shows they are all basically the same makeup. Now throw humans in the mix. We all share some DNA because we are all human but we break down from there. My cousin is a cardiologist and married to a orthopedic. My cousin also works with the medical examiner alot. The medical examiner stated that used to he could look at a pile of bones and tell you ethnic group, sex, and age of the bones. With all the interracial breeding happening these days it isn't so easy. But it has also opened up diseases that are normally contained to certain ethnic groups. So if you transport deer from one state to another and they breed with the existing population that are more immune to the area diseases, what is going to happen? I don't think we are gona have mutated deer but mutated diseases are expected. Instead of all this money being spent on the biggest racks couldn't somebody spend a Lil and come up with a good healthy deer that could thrive anywhere? |
September 7, 2016, 01:27 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|