Bergmann's "Rule" or genetics?

5

.50cal packer

New member
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Bergman's rule is generally correct. But I don't see how nutrition can be ignored: Farm areas vs. wild-only foods.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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. :)
 
When they brought the Wisconsin deer to Louisiana they were called "blue" deer. I never understood that. Does anybody here know the reason?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
So are genetics the key to massive bucks or does Bergmann's rule stand true?
Click to expand...

Both, plus overall health and food/minerals. Massive as to what? Weight or rack size? Many times around here(Wisconsin), the heaviest bucks shot during the season are not the ones with the biggest racks. Whether it's because the bigger racked bucks spend more time fighting and less time eating or they spend more of their fat reserves and process food more for antler growth, I don't know. That too could be a genetic thing. I live on the cusp of the driftless area here in Wisconsin and hunt both the Bluffs and Coulees of the driftless and the flat swamps just east of it. While it's only a matter of maybe 80 miles one way between the two, the difference in rack size is tremendous. The key is, in the drfitless area, the amount of lime/calcium in the soil is very high....to the point, water from there will leave a ring of calcium in the pan when you boil water. A small town in that area is infamous for big antlered bucks and is nicknamed "Valley of the Giants". 80 miles to the east, in the peat swamps, calcium is quickly leached out and racks on the average are much smaller and have much less mass in animals of equal size and age. In the Frac sand country in between, racks are also "in between".
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Much of this has been contributed to "hybridization". Tribes/cultures used to restrict breeding to those of their own tribe/culture. Once folks started to breed more indiscriminately, we created human Hybrids, bigger/stronger than the parents. No different than selective breeding among domesticated animals and plants to create different species and bloodlines. It was Darwinism and evolution that stopped growth at a certain height for many tribes/cultures. Those types that fit in best with their habitat and surroundings were the ones that were most likely to survive and breed, passing on their genes. Same with deer. Those attributes that raised survival chances made certain individuals live and breed longer, passing on those specific genes. Evolution in animals like deer that mature and breed in as little as one year, happens much faster than with humans where that cycle is ten to twenty times longer. And with humans, we no longer are tied tightly to our habitat in order to survive. We can move to a completely different ecosystem/environment and supplement our diet and/or living conditions to suit us. As for moving deer from northern latitudes to southern ones in hopes of creating a bigger size deer, it may happen, but evolution will at some point catch up and those smaller deer and their genes, better adapted to that environment, will be the ones to pass on their genetics. Until we can give them air conditioned an/or heated living quarters, their size will be dictated by the ambient temps, along with the available food supply.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Much of this has been contributed to "hybridization".
Click to expand...

Not sure that my family has undergone much "hybridization" over the last few decades, but we have gotten taller and larger. Better access to food and medicine has certainly played a role in the process.

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.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing a lot of issues here, not the least of which is equating the breeding programs of ignorant dog owners with poor comprehension of genetic ramifications, specifically breeding for phenotypes without understanding genotypes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top