Here is a map that shows where deer were stocked and where those deer came from.Seen where someone asked about this subject on another thread. I am not sure where I found this just happen to have it on my computer.

If i looked at it right Walker County was stocked in 9 different areas is that right Mike ?

Yea looks like 9 times from 4 different places. Clarke Co. Sumter Co. Marengo Co. and other Alabama sources where ever that is. Looks like some deer from Georgia was stocked about where Sam R. Murphy WMA is at.

thanks for posting.

I talked to a guy in Scottsboro last week that had a good buck he killed last year tested for it's origin (didn't even know you could do that), but anyway, said his deer came from Clarke Co., which matches what the map says. Any idea when most of the restocking took place? Apparently Franklin Co., Tn. was stocked with Michigan deer, according to our neighboring landowner that grew up on their farm.

Wonder how Lauderdale got those from Wisconsin? I've heard since I was a kid that we got those Wisconsin deer. Thanks for posting always wondered about that.

What does other Alabama sources refer to its one of the icons

Older guy I know said when he was in high school at West Limestone High School that the FFA did projects 2 years in a row that they released deer in the West Limestone area. He stated that both of these groups of deer were from Michigan. I have know reason to doubt the guy he is a straight up person. I think this map is probably not 100% right but who knows.

Although the jury is still out on regional genetic traits of deer, I wouldn't put much stock in the idea that deer from one area are bigger/better than deer from another area based on where the two areas were stocked from. As we learn more about the genetics of deer, I believe we will find that differences in genetics that produce significant differences in biology between areas stocked from different sources do not exist. In essence, Natural Selection, which can work much faster than most realize, washes out non-native genetics pretty quickly.

Meaning, a Michigan deer stocked in Bankhead or Wilcox, Clarke or Butler counties many decades ago will not continue to exhibit Michigan traits after three or four or five generations of offspring?

Correct. Not only are Michigan deer not at all adapted to a Deep South environment, meaning they will underperform the locally adapted deer, they also have no immunity to hemorrhagic disease. Fairly quickly, their genetics get "washed out" by the better adapted local genetics.

In every research project I've seen where northern deer were brought to the Deep South, not only did those deer stop growing large antlers (they actually grew smaller antlers than same age local bucks), the vast, vast majority died of HD within a few years.

Deer in the release area in Bankhead continued to rut in Nov for generations after the releases and was(still is) known for its big racked/big bodied bucks. Low native numbers kept the "genetics" from being diluted(nothing to dilute with) for generations. I'd guess that DNA testing of those core area deer will still show strong Michigan influences.

Fred, you think deer transplanted from 1,000 or more miles north to the south would still show influences almost 90 years later?

That's a lot of generations, a lot of deer moving in and out and dying and as the population grew elsewhere and moved around probably some "non-Michigan" deer getting involved.

Perhaps...

I would love to see genetic workups of those deer. I think much is surmised and little is proven.

I agree. Wish I had the money to do some genetic testing on those and other deer that were transplants.

Weren't there some Mexico deer brought into southwest Bama, or was that in Mississippi?

I know that Bankhead deer 20 years ago were still pretty sharply defined on when they rutted based on where the Michigan deer were released. I'd say that is a genetic influence from those Northern strain deer...

BhamFred,

I don't mean to imply that the Bankhead deer wouldn't display Michigan genetic heritage. However, there is a huge difference in genetic alleles that can be used to trace heritage, and whether or not those genes are responsible for any expressed traits. What I'm getting at is many of us will carry genetic coding that indicates a particular heritage--that far back in our past, some of our ancestors were from Europe or Africa or Asia--yet we do not display any physical characteristics of that heritage. The genes that carrying the heitage information are not active genes.

Again, perhaps. But just because when condition "A" changes, condition "B" also changes, that does not mean condition "A" controls condition "B." What I'm getting at is just because the Bankhead deer rut at the same times as Michigan deer, and the Bankhead area was stocked with Michigan deer, does not mean "Michigan genetics" are causing those breeding dates. It could be just a coincidence. Deer were stocked all across the Southeast from locations as widely ranging as WI, Mexico, and the Carolina coastal islands, even into areas that had no "local" deer left at all, yet in 90% of the cases, the deer in those areas now display no expressed traits (including breeding dates) of the deer from which they were stocked.

To be honest, AL is a real enigma when it comes to genetics and breeding dates. If the theory that localized breeding dates today are a remnant of where the deer were restocked from, we would expect to see a particular pattern develop. And that patterns is perfectly exemplified across AL, with a hodge-podge of unique and very unusual breeding dates scattered all over the state. However, if the theory that localized conditions is driving best (but different) breeding dates through Natural Selection, we would see a very different pattern--one of smooth transitions in changing breeding dates across geographic distance. And that is EXACTLY what is seen in all other areas of the Southeast where deer were stocked from an incredibly wide range of genetic stockings, with very different breeding dates. In essence, the breeding dates of the restocked deer have been washed out through Natural Selection, and now breeding dates are driven by what factors produce the highest fawn survival rates locally, despite where the original deer of the area were restocked from.

So why do most Southeast states display exactly what would be expected if Natural Selection is the driving force in breeding dates, yet AL alone displays the patterns that would be expected of restocking driving breeding dates? I doubt the Laws of Nature stop at the AL line (although you never know! ) I strongly suspect what is seen in AL breeding dates is purely coincidence.

old crumdgens like me don't believe in coincidences......

what about the timing of the rut? Both Clarke and Butler counties had deer from Michigan, but neither has a rut until late Jan. in to February. Seems if the bloodline stayed somewhat pure that the timing of the rut would be November.

native deer densities in the area of the Michigan implants would affect the dilution of the northern influence. I doubt that Clarke was ever deerless, or as low in density as the Bankhead area.