View Single Post
Old 12-20-2012, 11:00 AM   #66
Beastly Adventurer
triplenickel's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Campbell River, BC. Fantasy Island
Oddometer: 2,430
Originally Posted by Myfuture_yourdebt View Post
Please point out where I have presented a half truth, a personal argument, or generalist rules (that don't have a scientific basis).

Obviously there are exceptions to Bergman's Rule so it is not a "rule" in the traditional definition but it has been accepted by science none the less as a useful generalization with much more conformity than exception. I already know from reading many things that black bears here in CO are smaller on average than those in higher latitudes. A 300 pound black bear is considered big here. Not so much the case in Canada and Alaska. Is that difference directly attributable to the latitude difference itself? No (because the rule is about correlation not causation which no one said was uniform), but does it matter? No, my whole point about Bergman's Rule was that bears are less dangerous where they are smaller like most animals that are dangerous from their physical strength. And the end reality is that the further north you go, the bigger most animals get in general (like you pointed out, its not necessarily uniform, but the scientific generalization is still applicable nonetheless). That includes bears. Therefore the further north I go the more I worry about bears regardless of the species. They have bears running around big do you think they are (regardless of the reason for that)?To see a grizzly all I have to do is drive to Wyoming...but staying here in CO I don't have to worry about grizzlies or truly large black bears, at least at this time.
Put your dick back in your pants and let it go.
07 SE

"Up there where you eat moose-cock you must all be rockets scientists."
triplenickel is offline   Reply With Quote