Arizona Elk & Extinct Merriam's Elk

[matechakeric]

Look at the transplant elk on afognak island. They haven't been there more than 100 years and they are all huge.

those animals are roosevelt elk, not rocky mountain elk

 

[Matt R]

I’ve thought about what the OP brought up too and it is indeed interesting to mull. I’ve thought it is also interesting that no AZ elk have shown CWD yet and they have consequently been used to supply transplant efforts out east. Then again, AZ, in general, has not shown any incidence of CWD that I know of in any species. I wonder if anything has shown up in their genetic testing that might portend resistance at all?

 

[OntarioHunter]

There was always some doubt in the early days of my biology post-grad work (1980s) about whether the extinct Merriam's (aka "Arizona elk") and eastern elk were actually genetically different/pure enough to be separate subspecies. As I recall there was some serious talk that eastern and Manitoba elk were the same critter which isn't that far fetched considering the last herd of eastern elk was wiped out in Minnesota around 1911. Similarly, there were questions whether Arizona and rocky mountain elk were the same critter. I never heard if DNA analysis actually resolved the debate. One of the problems with DNA testing was few viable tissue samples of eastern elk survived.

 

[zach_destroys]

those animals are roosevelt elk, not rocky mountain elk

I never said they were.

 

[hank4elk]

There was always some doubt in the early days of my biology post-grad work (1980s) about whether the extinct Merriam's (aka "Arizona elk") and eastern elk were actually genetically different/pure enough to be separate subspecies. As I recall there was some serious talk that eastern and Manitoba elk were the same critter which isn't that far fetched considering the last herd of eastern elk was wiped out in Minnesota around 1911. Similarly, there were questions whether Arizona and rocky mountain elk were the same critter. I never heard if DNA analysis actually resolved the debate. One of the problems with DNA testing was few viable tissue samples of eastern elk survived.

I spent part of a day looking around the Smithsonian,Natural History Museum and Library of Congress for any info on Merriam's elk. Just for kicks. Not much to go on. Never found a decent specimen that was saved. If I recall there was one display of sheds laid out showing size difference.
No decent mounts even from Roosevelt's time.
Did see an elk rack that Lewis & Clark gave to Jefferson. It was in Montecello. Another was in Smithsonian. Rocky Mtn. elk.
There was a fossil of a Black elk,rack was huge. Way bigger that even the Merriam's. Plain's elk was the largest, from La Brea Tar pit.

This is what started my search as I remember a huge mount I saw in the Diamond S Ranch/Hotel in MT. They said it was a Black elk.
Guy at the Smithsonian said it was most likely a Saskat. or a Manitoba elk as black elk was extinct before anyone arrived who would save a real taxi mount. He said Merriam's & Rockies never interacted as they were separated by desert, Pueblo & desert tribes.
Dr. Valerius Geist told me the same thing once in BC.

 

[grandejuan]

Geist is the "Be all and end all authority". If anyone has the best scoop it's him. GJ

 

[matechakeric]

I never said they were.

i was implying that's why the elk on Alaskan islands were so big. Maybe a tad bigger in the biggest of specimens than what you'd find in BC or Oregon but rosy's are just big animals

 

[jt13]

well that's why the elk on that island are so big. probably no bigger than your average rosy elk in coastal Oregon or BC.

They're regarded as being the largest of the Roosevelt's. A few hundred pounds heavier than the standard Oregon, Washington, or BC elk. Not sure if there's any scientific data to back that up though

 

[matechakeric]

They're regarded as being the largest of the Roosevelt's. A few hundred pounds heavier than the standard Oregon, Washington, or BC elk. Not sure if there's any scientific data to back that up though

likely a result of Bergmann's rule that argues that mammals tend to be bigger in the colder/higher lattitude parts of their range than warmer parts. Bigger animals have smaller surface area to volume ratio which reduces heat loss

 

[madtom]

likely a result of Bergmann's rule that argues that mammals tend to be bigger in the colder/higher lattitude parts of their range than warmer parts. Bigger animals have smaller surface area to volume ratio which reduces heat loss

I see you listen to meateater Seems like steve can’t go 20 minutes without mentioning Bergman

 

[matechakeric]

I see you listen to meateater Seems like steve can’t go 20 minutes without mentioning Bergman

haha i used to listen to his podcast pretty consistently but only heard him mention it one time.

 

[redking11]

I hate to revive an old thread but wanted to provide some clarification on genetics as I do have some formal education in the area and just read an article on the idea that some merriam's elk survived and interbred with the transplanted Yellowstone elk. 1st the article I read took 82 samples of white mountain elk from a spread out area and 66 samples from the norther Yellowstone herd and the genetics matched. There was no indication of add mixture. The next question was okay then was Merriam's elk genetically different from rocky mountain elk to begin with? There are only 3 known Merriam elk specimens available. 1 in NYC, 1 in D.C. and the 3rd is just a rack that lives in Tucson. DNA was taken from the Tucson rack and it did show sufficient genetic diversity that had Merriam's elk survived and interbred that it should have been detected. The article said they were going to sample the D.C. and NYC samples later but I could not find results.

The physical differences (phenotype) you see in AZ elk compared to the Yellowstone herd is most likely due to climate, diet, population management and environment. Okay so here comes the tricky part. I'm going to tell you something that completely goes against everything you think you know about genetics and evolution. A change in environment can lead to very rapid and noticeable changes in animal appearance. IT is well documented, lizards of the same species have very different colors depending on whether they live on the dark rocks or tan sand just a few hundred yards away. The length and width of sparrow wings. Wings of birds living under bridges are shorter and wider allowing them to change direction faster and not get hit by cars. These changes are what we know and natural selection, but they don't mean a change in genetics. At this level, this very short time span, all that is really happening is nature is taking genes that already exist in a species such as a darker coat and making it more common, because it defers an advantage.

The changes that were used to track the genetic distance of Merriam's elk to Yellowstone elk and the same genetics used to tell you your haplogroup or your ancestry is for the most part due to random changes, that we call mutations, they often times have no effect on how you or an animal looks. In fact most genes don't have an effect on how you look & we still don't know what most genes do, if they do anything at all. These roll of the dice changes, we know, depending on the type of change, type of DNA, and species occurs on average every X number of years. Say for example every 5-6 thousand years or in some species there might be random mutations more often every 30-40 years.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

I hate to revive an old thread but wanted to provide some clarification on genetics as I do have some formal education in the area and just read an article on the idea that some merriam's elk survived and interbred with the transplanted Yellowstone elk. 1st the article I read took 82 samples of white mountain elk from a spread out area and 66 samples from the norther Yellowstone herd and the genetics matched. There was no indication of add mixture. The next question was okay then was Merriam's elk genetically different from rocky mountain elk to begin with? There are only 3 known Merriam elk specimens available. 1 in NYC, 1 in D.C. and the 3rd is just a rack that lives in Tucson. DNA was taken from the Tucson rack and it did show sufficient genetic diversity that had Merriam's elk survived and interbred that it should have been detected. The article said they were going to sample the D.C. and NYC samples later but I could not find results.

The physical differences (phenotype) you see in AZ elk compared to the Yellowstone herd is most likely due to climate, diet, population management and environment. Okay so here comes the tricky part. I'm going to tell you something that completely goes against everything you think you know about genetics and evolution. A change in environment can lead to very rapid and noticeable changes in animal appearance. IT is well documented, lizards of the same species have very different colors depending on whether they live on the dark rocks or tan sand just a few hundred yards away. The length and width of sparrow wings. Wings of birds living under bridges are shorter and wider allowing them to change direction faster and not get hit by cars. These changes are what we know and natural selection, but they don't mean a change in genetics. At this level, this very short time span, all that is really happening is nature is taking genes that already exist in a species such as a darker coat and making it more common, because it defers an advantage.

The changes that were used to track the genetic distance of Merriam's elk to Yellowstone elk and the same genetics used to tell you your haplogroup or your ancestry is for the most part due to random changes, that we call mutations, they often times have no effect on how you or an animal looks. In fact most genes don't have an effect on how you look & we still don't know what most genes do, if they do anything at all. These roll of the dice changes, we know, depending on the type of change, type of DNA, and species occurs on average every X number of years. Say for example every 5-6 thousand years or in some species there might be random mutations more often every 30-40 years.

I think some merriem elk were left in the Carmen mountains in Mexico , these are probably the last genetic herd around

Tracking in Mexico's Sierra del Carmen

A visit to the Sierra del Carmen in northern Mexico, a preserved sky island landscape full of bears, mountain lions, deer, bighorn sheep, elk and much more!

www.naturalistventures.com

 

[OntarioHunter]

I hate to revive an old thread but wanted to provide some clarification on genetics as I do have some formal education in the area and just read an article on the idea that some merriam's elk survived and interbred with the transplanted Yellowstone elk. 1st the article I read took 82 samples of white mountain elk from a spread out area and 66 samples from the norther Yellowstone herd and the genetics matched. There was no indication of add mixture. The next question was okay then was Merriam's elk genetically different from rocky mountain elk to begin with? There are only 3 known Merriam elk specimens available. 1 in NYC, 1 in D.C. and the 3rd is just a rack that lives in Tucson. DNA was taken from the Tucson rack and it did show sufficient genetic diversity that had Merriam's elk survived and interbred that it should have been detected. The article said they were going to sample the D.C. and NYC samples later but I could not find results.

The physical differences (phenotype) you see in AZ elk compared to the Yellowstone herd is most likely due to climate, diet, population management and environment. Okay so here comes the tricky part. I'm going to tell you something that completely goes against everything you think you know about genetics and evolution. A change in environment can lead to very rapid and noticeable changes in animal appearance. IT is well documented, lizards of the same species have very different colors depending on whether they live on the dark rocks or tan sand just a few hundred yards away. The length and width of sparrow wings. Wings of birds living under bridges are shorter and wider allowing them to change direction faster and not get hit by cars. These changes are what we know and natural selection, but they don't mean a change in genetics. At this level, this very short time span, all that is really happening is nature is taking genes that already exist in a species such as a darker coat and making it more common, because it defers an advantage.

The changes that were used to track the genetic distance of Merriam's elk to Yellowstone elk and the same genetics used to tell you your haplogroup or your ancestry is for the most part due to random changes, that we call mutations, they often times have no effect on how you or an animal looks. In fact most genes don't have an effect on how you look & we still don't know what most genes do, if they do anything at all. These roll of the dice changes, we know, depending on the type of change, type of DNA, and species occurs on average every X number of years. Say for example every 5-6 thousand years or in some species there might be random mutations more often every 30-40 years.

Yes, reading this brought to mind the light colored moth in England that developed sooty spots to help camouflage it in the industrial age of air pollution. I used to throw that one out in my high school biology class teaching unit on evolution. However, I think incidental nongenetic changes in appearance to accommodate environment would be more common naturally in lower level species ... or artificially in higher level ones (like livestock - is a paint horse's genetic makeup any different than a bay thoroughbred?)

So what's the story with Manitoba elk? It was long suspected they are the last remnants of eastern elk. Anyone testing their genes?

 

[hank4elk]

She was right.
I must be part Cro-Magnon.

Merriam's elk being here once could be viewed as a direct conflict with Bergman rule. They were larger than the other existing species. Northerns.
I saw the one rack in DC. Larger, palmated. Think big moose size. The La Brea fossels twice that.

The thought that there is any natural remaining native wildlife in Mexico at all seems unlikely to me. IMHO, from what I have seen in Mexico history.

We did see a hoof print that was about 6" here last year. And I do see many palmated bulls around here.
Wishful thinking.

 

[JAG]

In the Datil and Gallina Mountains of Soccoro County, Elvis has a cabin and spots a small herd of Merriams during the rut. To find them, you will need either a Geiger counter or an Electromagnetic Field (EMF) detector. When the area around you suddenly gets cold, turn them on. The sensation is similar to when the hairs on your body start shifting before a lightning strike.

 

[lpcoutdoors]

I have heard rumors that part of this Merriam's genetics being possibly present in some isolated populations of existing elk is being, pretty conspiracy theory here, squelched by a very powerful private land elk lobby here in Texas.

Whether that part is true or not, what is the case is that Merriams elk were native to the far western sky island mountain ranges of Texas and were wiped out. Rocky mountain elk were reintroduced and migrated in and have rebuilt a strong population. But here's the kicker, the debate rages whether or not this reintroduction, by private landowners, constitutes a native population, since the subspecies is different. So elk in Texas are thus regulated as livestock and not a game animal, the official position being that they are not native. This means that private landowners can kill them however they see fit. Some hunt them, for profit or pleasure, some, with irrigated crop fields that these elk in the desert hammer, kill all of them they can.

So the rumor, conspiracy theory, and hope of others, is that if Merriams elk DNA could be reintroduced as some level then then a stronger argument for them being native could be made, which would mean game regulation, or endangered species status, which both types of landowners don't want. So there's belief that both sides, normally at odds with each other, have worked to squelch the Merriam's DNA research.

In any case, lots of questions and lots of holes. But interesting to me anyway. Elk in Texas being native or livestock is very, very controversial in Texas, some real fights over it.

 

[hank4elk]

Hell,even people are livestock still in Tejas. LOL I'm sure there some juiced up elk on a ranch or 2 there.

I had a sort of discussion with a local rancher about elk. He was insistent they were never here before 1950.
True,maybe. But his family has only been here since 1920. He had never heard of Merriam's elk. Obviously never knew of the 1st elk TR reintroduced in NM in 1906 nor the several other plantings. Last planted here, in 1950. Rocky Mtn Elk. Which were native to about half of northern NM.

My logger buddy in the Gila knows the area well. His DIL knows elk better than most people. Both families have been here since forever. 1700's? He has never seen a Merriams rack nor heard of one in the area on any ranch. His dad never saw one either he said, but he had heard of them & did hunt Grisslies. 1900 on.

He did get drawn in on the 1st modern NMG&F elk hunt in 1978. Filled it. Filled many since.
One 397 bow bull I have seen. Hilda his wife, has a big rack on the wall that dwarfs it.
The family has been guiding here forever too. I learned more about elk ecology & habits in NM from one talk 10 years ago with them than I have ever learned from any game biologist, ever.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I’m in agreement with Hank that Gila elk are same in Springer as they are in Globe. But then moving further Northwest to Apache Sitgreaves, Prescott, Coconino and especially Kingman there must be DNA variations. I’m thinking Kingman and Hualapai elk should be closest genetically related provided minimal G&F interference with transplants.

 

[chrispbrown27]

Here is the article mentioned above. It's an interesting read.

http://www.deernut.com/Documents/Merriams_Elk_AWV.pdf