Matt,

Just saying, but Bankhead is not mountainous. It primarily has an elevation change of only 400 ft (600-1000 ft) with only a couple plateaus in between (minus the rock bluffs).

It's the warrior mountains. That's what they are called. You can argue if you want about what a mountain is or isn't, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

You made it seem hills (mountains) were an influence in your previous post, at least that is how I read ("off/up the mountain").

Sorry. I meant everything in the valley surrounding where the deer were introduced didn't allow deer movement. Deer typically do not travel over miles and miles of agricultural property with no forested corridors. At least in the south. It wasn't the topography of the landscape I was referring to. It was the use of the land by locals at the time.

Oh ok. But don't forget night-time travels. They don't use forest then.

Another reason I'm very dubious about the idea of restocking driving local rut timing.

From what I can gather, the closest reintroduction to my place was actually in AL and those deer were from Sumter Co, AL. Although my place is in TN but very close to the Bama line.

I guarantee my deer don't rut in January or February. Neither does the deer in that part of AL. Around my house in Lauderdale, the rut is almost identicle to the rut on our farm in TN. Usually around the 1st or 2nd week of December is the peak breeding from all indications.

I believe the deer released in my TN county were from Ft Campbell, KY. It seems our rut falls between those deer and the south Bama deer. Maybe the averages played out.

Interesting topic.

I don't know how accurate the map is but it's interesting. I hunt in south Russell County and I can firmly say that our peak rut is the 2nd week of December. Since there were no northern deer released in that area, it kinda shoots a hole in that theory.

I believe that the biologists are on the right track when they surmise that it has a lot to do with the sex ratio of the herd. Studies have suggested this is true.

The deer six miles as the crow flies rut 3 weeks before us, so shouldn't the dispersion theory taken care of that since the 1950's-60's?

Excellent question Maxwellmtn1976. But unfortunately, at this current date, not an answerable question. So many "holes" exist in both arguments--local breeding timing driven by restocking genetics versus localized Natural Selection--that until we know more about the genome of the whitetailed deer, and where in that genome any genetic links to breeding dates exist, any answer will remain pure speculation.

I've heard others agree with the sex ratio theory in regards to rut timing, but I know of one pocket of Al. that blows that theory...there is a small area around the Union Town/ Faundsdale where the deer herd is actually much smaller than what you typically see in the BB...they have a very good buck to doe ratio and some of the biggest horned an body deer you will see come out of Al., but their rut is still 3rd and 4th week in January...then there are other places with higher deer numbers and not as good of a buck to doe ratio where rut is early January, like in part of Green Co. With that being said, I believe that if you are over populated with does/ have too many does per buck and correct that problem you could see a week to 10 day shift (backwards) due mainly to a more concentrated and intense, but shorter rut. JMO based on observations in different areas I've hunted.

Actually, adult sex ratio affecting breeding timing in the Deep South is a proven fact. However, differences in adult sex ratio (and buck age structure) are not the driving force in a January rut. What I'm getting at is improving the local adult sex ratio and buck age structure will not shift a January rut into November. What balanced herd dynamics will do is concentrate breeding around the dates the local population is genetically programmed to have. I guess the best way to put it is that poor herd dynamics delay and string out the rut, but a January rut may be what the local herd is programmed to have. Poor dynamics would just delay the peak dates into February and string it out over several months.

To me, the really interesting part of how herd dynamics can affect breeding timing is why this only occurs in the South. I've seen (and analyzed some of the data myself) from projects in the Deep South in which peak breeding dates were shifted forwards (towards their genetically programmed timing) by over a month, but in the Midsouth it appears that peak dates can only be shifted forwards about 7-10 days. North of the Ohio River, herd dynamics appears to play no role in breeding timing.

wouldn't you think that as one goes north and the winter weather plays a bigger role in fawn survival that the weather would be the over riding factor in rut timing?

winter weather is certainly not much, or any, of a factor in fawn survival here in the Deep South.

Absolutely BhamFred, and that is one theory on why northen deer' rut timing is not affected by other influences, such as herd dynamics. The theory is that because fawn birth timing is so critical to fawn survival up north (born too early in spring, and newborn fawns could be killed by late winter storms; born too late in summer, and fawns do not have enough growing days to reach the critical body mass necessary to survive their first winter), that Natural Selection has a very powerful selection criterion to select against, hence that timing becomes genetically "rigid" (random variations too far away from the "best fit" are quickly weeded out of the population through fawn mortality). However, in the South, the region's far milder winter climate plays little role in fawn survival, thus weather conditions are NOT the top selection criterion and Nature allows for a wide variety of successful fawning dates. If that is the case, the big question then becomes, in the South what ARE the primary selection criteria Nature is using to genetically select for best breeding/fawning dates? In some southern areas with "weird" breeding dates, the probable selection criteria are pretty easy to surmise. But in most southern situations, especially considering the huge range of dates that have been documented, it's a mystery.

Would that lend any credence to theories that the extreme south Florida (Zone A, Okeechobee and south) rut in July and August is because fawns born during the rainy season would have less chance to survive in watery areas rife with mosquitoes, snakes and predators?

Clem,

Everglades breeding/fawning dates are probably THE top example of how localized conditions can produce truly bizarre rut dates through Natural Selection. Much of the Everglades is one huge, shallow, slow-moving river, with standing water often extending for miles in all directions. In this environment, newborn fawns could easily drown. However, south Florida does have a dry season, which happens to be January through March. At that time of year, water levels are usually lowest and dry ground easiest to find. Through Natural Selection, those deer that by random genetic variation displayed the earliest breeding dates in fall produced the most surviving fawns, passing that genetic trait down from generation to generation. Eventually, genetic variation and Natural Selection of the best breeding dates for newborn survival shifted the rut into July And August so that fawns are born during the dry season in January through March.

Does anyone know the numbers involved as far as the number of deer released or relocated at a location? We talking two or three released or more?

Thanks, BSK.

When we were hunting there in July the locals were talking about that and how the fawns were born in the dry season. The lore is because if they weren't, mosquitoes would suck them dry. Your biology offers the more plausible reasoning.

It was wild to see bucks chasing does the last weekend of July. Locals said they've seen it earlier some years and later, by plus/minus two weeks from the last weekend of July.

I'd like to know as well...I'm guessing more than 2 or 3 due to the fact that deer were being brought in due to a almost non existent population, especially in some areas.