S MULE DEER - Utah Division of Wildlife Resources · information on mule deer management and...

Since 1922, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) has servedas a leader promoting management and protection of fish and wildlife in the westernUnited States and Canada. An organization represented by 17 states and four Canadianprovinces, WAFWA has faced the difficult challenge of sifting through the ever-changing

societal, economic, political and scientific issues that define natural resource management in aWest that has undergone many changes.

WAFWA is particularly concerned about mule deer, a species that lives in every NorthAmerican habitat except for the tropics, arctic and extreme deserts. Mule deer numbers and distribution have been declining throughout the West since the latter third of the 20th century.

To address this concern, the Mule Deer Working Group was established at the midwinter meeting of WAFWA in 1998. The group was charged with finding “solutions to our common mule deer management problems,” expanding “cooperative research and management in theWestern states and provinces,” and sharing information with agency directors and administrators

on mule deer issues. To achieve its goal, the working group set

out to improve communication about muledeer, and make it easier for agencies to shareinformation on mule deer management and research.

Mule Deer in the West, ChangingLandscapes, Changing Perspectives, is one of the outcomes of the working group. Thegoals of this publication are to share researchand technical information on mule deer in an easy-to-read format, and to generate informeddiscussion on a species that defines the West and is of tremendous importance to many people.

This publication sheds light on the singlegreatest factor that has caused declines inmule deer—loss and degradation of habitat. It offers an overview of mule deer, and looksat ways deer, elk, livestock and people inter-act. Feature articles expose issues affectingmule deer populations such as fire, disease,changes in habitat and predator-prey relation-ships, and the challenges biologists face in surveying big game animals. It explores a concept called adaptive resource manage-

ment, a relatively newmethod of managingwildlife throughout the world.

It concludes with a look to the future, andoffers additional sources of information for youto learn about mule deer.

It is our hope that this publication builds a foundation to generate informed discussion,and enhances understanding of the competingpromises and visions for responsible manage-ment of mule deer.

WAFWA Mule Deer Working Group

A Publication by theWestern Association of Fish and WildlifeAgencies Mule DeerWorking Group

Changing Landscapes, Changing Perspectives

MUL

E DEE

RG

ary

Her

ron,

Nev

ada

Dep

artm

ent o

f Wild

life

LT Mule Deer_2006.Lynx 8/31/06 2:29 PM Page 1

1

Steven HuffakerDirector Sponsor, Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Jim deVosChair, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Jim HeffelfingerChair, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Matt KirchhoffAlaska Department of Fish and Game

Bill GlasgowAlberta Environment and Natural Resource Service

Bruce TreichelAlberta Fish and Wildlife Division

Ron BjorgeAlberta Fish and Wildlife Division

Brian WakelingArizona Game and Fish Department

Steve RosenstockArizona Game and Fish Department

Ted McKinneyArizona Game and Fish Department

Ian HatterBritish Columbia Ministry of Environment

Ken MayerCalifornia Department of Fish and Game

Craig StowersCalifornia Department of Fish and Game

Mary SommerCalifornia Department of Fish and Game

Eric LoftCalifornia Department of Fish and Game

Rick KahnColorado Division of Wildlife

John EllenbergerColorado Division of Wildlife

Bruce WatkinsColorado Division of Wildlife

Thomas KaiakapuHawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife

Jim UnsworthIdaho Department of Fish and Game

Lonn KuckIdaho Department of Fish and Game

Tom KeeganIdaho Department of Fish and Game

Brad ComptonIdaho Department of Fish and Game

Lloyd FoxKansas Department of Wildlife and Parks

Glenn EricksonMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Dave PacMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Gary HammondMontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Kit HamsNebraska Game and Parks Commission

Bruce MorrisonNebraska Game and Parks Commission

Mike HessNevada Department of Wildlife

Mike CoxNevada Department of Wildlife

Tony WasleyNevada Department of Wildlife

Darrel WeybrightNew Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Barry HaleNew Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Bill JensenNorth Dakota Game and Fish Department

Bruce StillingsNorth Dakota Game and Fish Department

Dan EdwardsOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Tom ThorntonOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Peter TestOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Syd BarberSaskatchewan Department of Environmentand Resource Management

Dennie MannSouth Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department

Ted BenzonSouth Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department

Clay BrewerTexas Parks and Wildlife Department

Mike WelchUtah Division of Wildlife Resources

Steve FlindersUtah Division of Wildlife Resources

Steve CranneyUtah Division of Wildlife Resources

Jim KarpowitzUtah Division of Wildlife Resources

Craig R. McLaughlinUtah Division of Wildlife Resources

Lou BenderWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Jerry NelsonWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Daryl LutzWyoming Game and Fish Department

Dan StroudWyoming Game and Fish Department

Doug McWhirterWyoming Game and Fish Department

Thomas JungYukon Department of Environment

Rob FlorkiewiczYukon Department of Environment

Len CarpenterWildlife Management Institute

Carlos Alcalá-GalvánInstituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales,Agricolas, y Pecuarias, Mexico

Nevelyn HeadrickUtah State University

Todd BlackUtah State University

Terry MessmerUtah State University

Warren BallardTexas Tech University

William MillerArizona State University

Michael ConoverJack H. Berryman Institute

Archie ReevePIC Technologies, Inc.

of variation within each species,some mule deer and white-taileddeer cannot be quickly identified.Black-tailed deer further cloud theidentification issue because they display characteristics similar to bothwhite-tailed deer and other muledeer subspecies.

When used alone, some of theidentifying characteristics can beconfusing. Thus, it is important to use several characteristics to identify species.

TailsWhite-tailed deer have a wide,

flattened tail that is broad at the baseand narrower at the tip. A darkerbackside contrasts the pure whiteunderside. The darker tail is edgedwith white fringe hairs that are anextension of the white underside.White-tailed deer lack a large, con-spicuous white rump, and have tailsthat are at least 7 1/2 inches long.

Mule deer tails appear cylindrical,or rope-like, and are usually whiteon the backside, with a distinctiveblack tip surrounded by a large,obvious white rump. Some muledeer may have a thin dark line run-ning down the back surface of thetail. Mule deer tails are less than 7 1/2 inches long.

Mule Deer, Changing Landscapes, Changing Perspectives, is a seriesof non-technical articles based on technical papers from the book,“Mule Deer Conservation: Issues and Management Strategies”Published by The Berryman Institute, Utah State University

This publication was produced and edited by Creative Resource Strategies, West Linn, Oregon.

Publication Design by Frey Design of Portland, Oregon

This publication may be photocopied or reprinted in its entirety for noncommercial purposes.

Financial assistance for publication provided by The Mule Deeer Foundationwww.muledeer.org.

2nd Printing 2006

Suggested Citation: Mule Deer Working Group. 2003. Mule Deer:Changing landscapes, changing perspectives. Mule Deer WorkingGroup, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Looks aren't everything,but if you're a deer inthe West, looks play animportant role in deter-mining whether you're

called a mule deer, black-taileddeer or white-tailed deer. Behaviorand habitat contribute, as well.

Species and SubspeciesSubtle variations in characteris-

tics such as size, behavior andappearance in deer occur becauseof local habitat, food or weatherconditions. There have been asmany as 11 subspecies of muledeer and 30 subspecies of white-tailed deer described – all of these subspecies belong to tworecognized species of deer in theWest; mule deer and white-taileddeer. Black-tailed deer are alsofound in the West, but they areactually a subspecies of mule deer.All deer are members of theCervidae family, hoofed mammalsthat have antlers such as elk,moose and caribou.

Mule deer were first describedin North America in 1817 basedon field notes made by Charles LeRaye while he was held captive bythe Sioux tribe on the Big SiouxRiver in South Dakota (see sidebararticle). The scientific name of thespecies, hemionus, literally means"half-mule,” because the ears aresimilar to those of a mule.

Differences Between Species

There are several ways to tell amule deer from a white-taileddeer, a critical need for hunterswho must be able to identifyspecies in areas where both exist.Mule deer differ from white-taileddeer in several ways, but because

What's in a Name?

Mule deer (foreground) and white-tailed deer (background) foraging together. Note the difference inmetatarsal glands and tails. By Pat O’Brien.

Mule Deer White-tailed Deer

MULE DEER WORKING GROUP MEMBERSAND CONTRIBUTORS


2

AntlersAntlers are the least reliable

characteristic to use when trying todifferentiate mule deer from white-tailed deer because of the variationin antler shape and form in bothspecies. Antlers can, however, helpidentification when used in combi-nation with other characteristics.

Mature mule deer bucks haveantlers with main beams thatsweep outward and upward, fork-ing once and then forking again.Brow tines are not always present.Mature bucks typically have eightto 10 total points (including browtines that exceed one inch). Thesebucks are considered 4-pointbucks (the number of points onone side of the rack excluding thebrow tines).

Typical white-tailed deer antlershave several antler tines that arisesingly off a main beam that sweepsoutward and forward from thebases. The brow tines are nearlyalways present and usually promi-nent. Mature white-tailed deerbucks frequently have eight totalpoints, including the brow tines.

It is not unusual for white-taileddeer to have forked tines like thoseof a mule deer, or for mule deertines to arise from the main beamlike those of a white-tailed deer.Mule deer bucks less than threeyears of age are frequently mistak-en for large white-tailed deerbecause the tines have not yetdeveloped the characteristic fork.

There may also be regional dif-ferences in antler form. For exam-ple, the white-tailed deer in theCarmen Mountains of northernMexico seem to have a highdegree of forked antlers like amule deer.

Facial MarkingsThe forehead of a white-tailed

deer is usually the same color asthe rest of the face, although it canbe slightly darker. The white eyerings and markings directly behindthe nose are prominent.

A mule deer usually has a distinctive black forehead, ormask, that contrasts sharply with a light grey face. The lighter facial coloration makes the eye rings and muzzle markings seem less obvious.

EarsWhite-tailed deer ears are gen-

erally 2/3 the overall length of thehead (back of head to nose), while

those of a mule deer are 3/4 thelength of the head.

Alarm BehaviorWhen alarmed, a white-tailed

deer usually raises its tail, expos-ing the fluffy white underside toalert all other deer in the area ofapparent danger. It then runsdirectly away from the source ofdanger.

A mule deer does not "flag" itstail, and often bounces away in amotion called "stotting," in whichall four hooves push off the groundat the same time. A mule deer maynot escape as fast as a white-taileddeer, but a mule deer is moreeffective in quickly movingthrough rugged terrain.

Both species may stop and lookback at the source of potentialdanger, but this behavior is moretypical of mule deer.

Metatarsal GlandsThe best way to tell a white-

tailed deer from a mule deer is thesize and location of the metatarsalglands, but this is not areadily observable charac-teristic. The metatarsalglands of both species arelocated on the outside ofthe lower portion of thehind leg, and are sometimesconfused with the tarsalgland on the inside of theleg (hocks).

White-tailed deer havemetatarsal glands that areone inch or less in length,and always encircled withwhite hair. This gland is atmidpoint or below midpointon the lower shank of the leg.

Mule deer have much largermetatarsal glands that are encir-cled with white hair. The glandmeasures three to seven inches inlength, and starts at the ankle jointand extends downward toward thehoof. It appears as a large, longtuft of hair.

There are regional differences inmetatarsal glands within species.For example, metatarsal glands ofmule deer in desert habitats arereported to be shorter than muledeer in more northern habitats.

Preorbital GlandsThe preorbital (“pre” means “in

front of”, “orbital” means “eye”)gland is located in front of the eyeand differs considerably betweenthe two species. The preorbital

gland of a white-tailed deer is verysmall, appearing as a small slitwith a maximum depth of 3/8inch. The preorbital gland of amule deer is comparatively large,forms a substantial pocket with adepth averaging 3/4 inch, andcommonly contains a small ball ofyellow, waxy substance.

Hybrids When two species breed, the

offspring is called a hybrid.Different species of animals nor-mally do not breed with oneanother because they use differenthabitats, or are geographically iso-lated. If similar species live in thesame habitat, then they generallybreed at different times or have dif-ferent breeding behavior.

In the case of white-tailed deerand mule deer, courtship andbreeding behavior are differentenough that body language andscent cues from a female muledeer during rut are not normally"understood" by a white-taileddeer buck, and vice versa. In somecases where ranges overlap, this

system breaks down and muledeer and white-tailed deer maymate and produce a hybrid deer.

Hybrid deer may have charac-teristics of both mule deer andwhite-tailed deer. But a youngmule deer may look like a largewhite-tailed deer, especially if its tail has a dark stripe down the back.

Every year numerous huntersreport seeing hybrid deer, however,it is unlikely a hunter will ever seea hybrid deer in the field. The lownumber of white-tailed deer thatmate with mule deer, and the lowsurvival rate of hybrid offspring,greatly reduces the chance ofencountering a true hybrid in thewild. Hybrids are rare and difficultto accurately identify because ofmany varying characteristics.

Of Shipwrecks andCaptives – A Name in the Making

Giving an animal a scientificname doesn't sound like the stuffmovies are made of, but the storybehind the genus and species ofmule deer includes tales of a shipwreck and a trader heldhostage by Native Americans.

A naturalist that lived in the 19th century is credited with givingmule deer their scientific name,Odocoileus hemionus (Odocoileusmeans hollow tooth, whilehemionus means half-mule).Constantine Samuel Rafinesque(1783-1840) was traveling fromSicily to the United States in 1815when his vessel shipwrecked off of Long Island Sound. Rafinesquesettled in North Carolina, where heread the journals of a Canadiantrader named Charles Le Raye who was held captive for almost14 years by a party of NativeAmerican Sioux. The journal contained a wealth of informationon natural resources and geologyfrom the Midwest to the West Coast.

In his journals, Le Rayedescribed "A kind of deer (on theSioux River), called mule deer. It is smaller and of a darker colourthan the red deer, having largebranched horns. The ears are verylarge, the tail about five incheslong with short dark hair, and atthe end a tuft composed of longblack hair."

Rafinesque called this "new"species, Cervus hemionus, andlikened it to a relative of thealready named "black tail deer,"Cervus melanurus.

At the time, Rafinesque classi-fied mule deer and black-taileddeer as different species, buttoday they are recognized as different forms (subspecies) of the same species.

Mule deer x white-tailed deer hybrid harvested by JesseLim in southeastern Arizona. By Steve Duarte.

Sketch of Rafinesque from The Kentucky Encyclopedia, The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.


Europeans began settling the West amere 150 years ago, adrop in the geologicalbucket of time. The

streaming of settlers westward cre-ated big changes on the landscape,as land was planted to row cropsand grazed by livestock. Althoughno accurate way to estimate muledeer populations was available atthe turn of the century, accounts oftheir presence indicate numberswere very low.

Hunting regulations, increasedlaw enforcement, creation ofwildlife refugessuch as the GrandCanyon NationalGame Preserve,and improvementsin wildlife habitatand predator man-agement resultedin a collectiveexplosion of muledeer herds, withpopulation esti-mates totaling 2.3million in 1950.The 1950s and1960s were considered the "hey days" of mule deer populations.

The population highs of the1950s and 1960s were followedby sharp declines in mule deernumbers. Biologists don't believethere is one silver bullet thatexplains the declines in both numbers and distribution of muledeer. What biologists know is thatthe many changes that have takenplace across large landscapesresult in fewer mule deer that cancall the West home.

Chris Madson, Wyoming Gameand Fish Publications Supervisorand Editor of Wyoming WildlifeMagazine, included some of these issues in an essay titled, "The Quiet Crisis" in theSeptember 2001 issue ofWyoming's magazine.

"The problems facing wildlifeand wild places in North Americaare deeper and more complexthan they have ever been before,but their root causes attract littleattention," said Madson. "All of uswho care about wildlife face achallenge of unprecedenteddimensions, an emergency thatwestern conservationist and states-man Stuart Udall once called thequiet crisis.”

The quiet crisis began with thesettling of the West. After livestockwere introduced into the GreatBasin in the 1860s, native bunchgrasses were overgrazed and

replaced by sagebrush. A severewinter in the late 1800s decimatedmany livestock herds and wildlifepopulations. This was followed byan abundance of wildfires andabout seven wet years in the GreatBasin, which led to the widespreadestablishment of bitterbrush, a highquality preferred food of muledeer.

The increase in quality andquantity of plants preferred bymule deer caused mule deer populations to rebound by 1950.During the 1950s, biologists notedfawn:doe ratios of 75 to 100, or

even 100 to 100, something that isunheard of in many places in theWest today.

Then some of the quiet crisisfactors kicked in, resulting ingreater competition for naturalresources and a lesser ability of theland to support large numbers ofmule deer.

These include:

1. Habitat changes caused by firesuppression, invasive plants andlivestock management have less-ened the ability of habitats to sup-port mule deer populations.

2. Gas, mineral and oil explorationfragment habitat and continue tothreaten important traditionalmule deer range.

3. Predators play a shifting role ashabitat loss and urban sprawl con-centrate mule deer populations onsmaller tracts of land near humanpopulations.

4. Climatic changes such asdrought and severe winters play akey role in quality and quantity ofhabitat, and the ability of muledeer young to survive one year tobreeding age.

5. Habitats are fragmented and lostas a result of human populationgrowth and development in tradi-tional summer and winter muledeer range.

6. Interactions with elk mayincrease when habitat is poor or limited.

Today, virtually every ecoregionhas a lesser ability to produce and maintain mule deer when

3

The West that Was... No Longer Is

A combination of fire

suppression, oil-gas-mineral

exploration and mining,

predation, habitat

fragmentation, spread of

invasive plants, drought,

competition between

species, livestock manage-

ment and other human

factors such as urban

development have affected

the habitats of mule deer.

Riparian area in Great Plains Ecoregion. By Steve Knapp.

Housing in most of the remaining winter range along Wasatch Front, SLC. By Steve Cranney.


4

compared to the mid-1950s. Theterm biologists give to the amountof food, water and cover an areacan support is carrying capacity.

Carrying capacity can belikened in simpler terms to theamount of clothes a suitcase willhold. You can fill a suitcase, but atsome point, there is no room leftfor additional items. Habitat ismuch the same way. Land cannotsupport the numbers of mule deerit once had if thequality habitatdoesn't exist toprovide food,cover, water andshelter to thoseanimals year-round.

On a land-scape scale,mule deer popu-lations have notrecovered sincehabitat begandeclining in thelatter half of thelast century. Andrealistically,unless thehuman population stops growingand habitat loss and degradationceases, people are facing a Westthat will continue to look muchdifferent from the one that existedduring the mule deer “hey days.”And this land will more than likelycontain fewer mule deer.

Ken Mayer, Chief of theScientific Branch for Oil SpillPrevention and Response with theCalifornia Department of Fish andGame, and co-author of “ASportsman’s Guide to ImprovingDeer Habitat in California,” offeredseveral insights to habitat changesafter his lengthy tenure as a deerbiologist for California Fish andGame. He said that while manyfactors have caused mule deer

declines, fire suppression and con-version of shrub-scrub habitatshave literally changed the face ofthe landscape.

Early successional stages com-monly have young forbs andshrubs that are high in protein,very nutritious and within thereach of mule deer. Later succes-sional stages can provide cover formule deer, but generally providepoor habitat because of the lack offood present.

A stand of cheatgrass that resulted from a 2001 wildfire, showing theskeletons of dead sagebrush plants that will not resprout due to the lackof moisture at this elevation. By Mike Cox.

On a very large scale, there arefewer habitats in early succession-al stages than there were 50 yearsago. Mayer referred to a researchstudy on mule deer food habits in1954. "Ninety percent of the dietof mule deer was shrub compo-nent, with the remainder herbsand grasses," said Mayer. "We didthe same study again in 1994 andwe got 80 percent herbaceousmaterial in the diet. That showswhat is happening to our ranges.You can't support large numbers ofdeer on grasses."

Mayer predicts it will be impossible to return to the muledeer population levels of the1950s and 1960s.

"I don't think it’s feasible from aresource habitat perspective or apolitical perspective," said Mayer."There's a hell of a lot more peo-ple living in places like Coloradoand California than the 50s and60s, and we're converting habitatat a high rate."

If it isn't possible to mule deernumbers that existed in the mid1950s, then what is possible?

- It is possible to manage mule deerpopulations at optimum levels givenexisting habitat conditions, and towork hard to manage the factors that limited mule deer popu-lations over the past half century.

- It is possible to maximize the bene-fits to wildlife from development of all kinds.

- It is possible to restore habitats on alarge scale to improve the ability ofexisting habitats to support muledeer and offset habitat loss.

Mayer said it is especially impor-tant to manage public perspective.

"If we're really going to changethings, we need to change the per-spective of the public regarding whata healthy forest ecosystem is," saidMayer. "The public has a perceptionthat a forest is trees. But a forest isreally a variety of things, from grass-es and forbs to old growth."

The Sierra Nevada Story George Gruell, a retired wildlife biologist from the U.S. Forest

Service, compared landscape photos from the late 1800s and early1900s to recent times of the Sierra Nevada is his book, “Fire inSierra Nevada Forests.” His photographic essay is a mule deer’snightmare.

The Sierra Nevada is a 15.5 million acre chunk of land thatspans 360 miles north to south from California’s Central Valley to 50 plus miles east. Elevations range from sea level to 14,000 feet,and annual precipitation ranges from 20 to 75 inches.

Gruell’s goal was to identify the factors that have caused landscape changes. He noted that the health of the forests andhabitats are declining, and that excessive fuel loads, a direct resultof widescale fire suppression, make many areas susceptible tocatastrophic fires. Gruell said changes in climate, livestock grazing, logging and fire have been the biggest agents of changein the Sierra Nevada. The end result, he concludes, is a dense forest with much less wildlife habitat.

The future of the Sierra Nevada may be bleak for wildlife andpeople if public opinion about management of the landscape doesnot change. Gruell believes it is possible to improve the landscapeof the Sierra Nevada for people and wildlife, but only if fire isrestored to the ecosystem.

"Removing fire has had a

dramatic effect," said

Mayer. "We've taken fire

out of the ecosystem in the

forest environment. When

we finally get a big fire,

2-4-D (a herbicide) is

sprayed to kill the shrubs,

then it's planted to trees.

That eliminates early

successional stages."

Is the habitat situation in the Sierra Nevada unique? Hardly. While this

example is specific to California, each of the mule deer ecoregions has been

subjected to many factors that have lessened the ability of western

landscapes to provide homes for deer and other species of wildlife.

Biologists have taken an in-depth look at each of the factors contributing

to mule deer declines, and offer suggestions to improve habitats that

support not only mule deer, but many western wildlife populations.


Fire, invasive species andlivestock managementhave changed westernlandscapes

Fire

Of all the factors thathave shaped theecoregions in whichmule deer exist,fire has been

the strongest one with thegreatest positive influence.Fire is a critical force in main-taining and creating habitatfor mule deer because firesets back succession.

Succession is the orderlyand progressive replacementof one plant community byanother until a fairly stablecommunity occupies an area.If left alone, an abandonedcrop field will not remain inthat state for very long.Generally, grasses, forbs andweeds will begin to grow, followed by brushy plants,then by saplings that invadeopen areas, until the site isfinally occupied by a stand oftrees. Historically, fire hasbeen the most effective tool inmaintaining grasslands acrossthe United States. Today, it isstill considered to be the mostimportant tool a biologist has tomanage habitat.

A quick peak at national histori-cal wildfire data provides insightinto the frustration land managersface with fire suppression efforts.

Decade Number of acres burned

1920s 26 million acres1930s 39 million acres1940s 23 million acres1950s 9 million acres1960s 4 million acres1970s 3 million acres1980s 4 million acres1990s 3.6 million acres

Since the decade of the 1940s,fires have not burned in double

digit numbers in the United States.Wyoming Game and Fish BiologistSteve Kilpatrick attributes the hey-day populations of mule deer inthe middle of the 20th century tothe quantity and types of fires thatburned in the decades prior to the1950s.

“In the 1920s through 1950, we had some massive burns andresprouting shrubs,” saidKilpatrick. “We had high qualitybrowse, and a lot of quantity - lots

of acres of good (mule deer) groceries. Browse was nutritious,young, palatable and easy todigest.” Now the plants are older,and when it rains or they arebrowsed, they don’t respond asvigorously.

In addition to fewer fires burn-ing on fewer acres, fire suppres-sion has changed the intensity andrate at which fires burn, resultingin different and unpredictablecommunities of plants. Fuel loadsbuild up such that when infrequentfires occur, they cover largeamounts of land and burn veryhot. A recent example of that is theRodeo fire near Pinedale, Arizona,that burned at 2,000 degreesFahrenheit. In general, areas thatburn fast and hot become mono-cultures, in which there are fewertypes of plants that are similar in age.

Daryl Lutz, WildlifeManagement Coordinator forWyoming Game and Fish inCasper, said that lack of fire is creating overaged less useful aspenand sagebrush stands.

“On mule deer summer range,aspen communities are being lostat an alarming rate due to naturalvegetative succession,” said Lutz.The reason these habitats are beinglost is lack of fire.

“In an aspen stand, you can seea vegetative response within oneor two years of a fire,” said Lutz.But some plant communities donot respond as quickly. Lutz said,“In a sagebrush stand, it could beup to twenty years.”

Lutz emphasized the impor-tance of creating patterns of habitat.

“Whenever we do things insagebrush communities, we alwaysemphasize and tailor our prescrip-tions to a mosaic of burned andunburned,” said Lutz. “We’re starting to evaluate how we shouldbe doing prescribed burning so wedon’t eliminate brood rearing ornesting habitat for sage grouse,and help other species.”

Ken Mayer of the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Gameemphasized the changes that happen to a landscape over time if small, cool, frequent fires arereplaced by large, hot, infrequentfires.

"Hot fires burn minerals fromthe soil, and you don't get theregeneration you should," saidMayer. This lessens the potential of the site to be productive, andultimately results in long-termchanges to the habitat.

"In alpine communities, there isabout a three month growing sea-son," said Mayer. "In some of thatcountry, the snow doesn't come offuntil July. The plants have a shortwindow to grow, and have adaptedto fires over a long period of time. If you eliminate fire, then introducefire in a big way (a large, hot,intense fire), it takes 10 years forthose plants to become useful formule deer again."

Kilpatrick echoed the conse-quences of large, hot fires. “MotherNature says you can pay me now oryou can pay me later with interest,”said Kilpatrick. “Suppressed fires willbe a lot larger, and the intensity andseverity will be greater when they doburn. Wildlife love resproutingshrubs. But fires that burn hot cankill resprouting species of shrubs. It’s quite a while before the moonscape appearance disappears.We’re exacerbating the situation by our actions.”

5

Losing Ground

Mule deer thrive in early

successional habitats, where

forbs, grassy plants and

shrubs dominate. These

environments are not as

stable as forest habitats, and

they rely on fire or some

other type of disturbance to

return them to an early

successional stage. If they

are not disturbed, they

eventually become more

stable plant communities

dominated by trees and large

shrubs. Tree-dominated

habitats offer mule deer a

place to retreat from severe

weather, but these areas

offer very little in the way of

food. That is why it is impor-

tant to provide mule deer

with a mosaic or pattern of

habitats that can provide

food, cover and water.

Forest fire. By Gary Schafer.

1


Arizona Game and FishDepartment’s Chief of ResearchJim deVos said large, hot fires contribute to soil erosion.

“Another problem associatedwith the catastrophic fires that areoccurring due to long-term firesuppression is that virtually all ofthe vegetation is lost, whichincreases soil erosion,” said deVos.“It is important to remember that it took eons to build the top soillayer, and its loss will alter thelands’ ability to rebuild. Wherethis occurs, the land may neverrecover its capacity to supportwildlife populations as it didbefore these incredibly intense fires.”

To complicate matters, habitatswith plant species such as moun-tain big sagebrush are experienc-ing fires every 100 or more yearscompared to pre-European settle-ment fire frequencies of 12-25years. Wyoming big sagebrush, ahabitat with large amounts of theinvasive plant, cheatgrass, is nowsubjected to fires every 10 yearsinstead of every 50 to 100 years.Drastic changes in fire frequencymay result in changes in the typesof plants found in a given area.

Kilpatrick said that droughtyears compound the problem,making it more difficult for biologists to use prescribed fire.

“We’re using prescribed fire asmuch as we can, but it’s more dif-ficult to use during these droughtyears because of the risk factor,”said Kilpatrick. “It takes someonethat can find the dotted line to saythey’ll be responsible for doingprescribed burns in a risky situa-tion. But fires normally burn twiceas many acres in drought years.”

Kilpatrick said land managersare behind the curve burning on alandscape scale, especially com-pared to the amount of land thatused to burn on an annual basis.

Kilpatrick said federal agenciesresponded to the Yellowstone Firein the late 1980s with a strongeducational effort, but that habitatchange often occurs over the long-term, oftentimes longer than thelife span of a human being.

“Fire was THE main player forming the very landscape thatwe cherish and want to protectnow,” said Kilpatrick. “People realize it’s a dynamic system, be itever so slow. For example, aspenneeds a fire every 80-100 years.People don’t see those changestaking place in their lifetime. Butthe public is accepting fire – theyjust don’t want to see their homesburned down.”

To avoid seeing homes burned,people are willing to pay a steepprice. Suppression costs for wild-fires are easily three to five timesgreater than the cost of prescribedfire per acre. In the last sevenyears, the cost of fire suppressionfor federal agencies has rangedfrom a low of $256 million in1997 to a high of $1.36 billion in 2000.

According to Kilpatrick, theeffects of fire suppression areworsened because of habitat fragmentation.

“You couple what has happenedwith fire, and compound winterrange being used by urban sprawl,and then our exploration anddevelopment for oil and gas onwinter ranges – it’s fragmentinghabitat,” said Kilpatrick.

and fragmented habitat.” He saidthe increased presence of preda-tors such as mountain lions in suburbs is likely a direct result ofthe wildlife habitat that has beencreated at the urban interface.

Kilpatrick cautioned, “Don’tblame the predators. They’re thesymptom, we’re the problem.”

Invasive Species – A growing threat

What harms 15 percent of ourcountry's ecosystems, costs theUnited States at least $137 billiona year in lost profit and eradicationefforts, and includes a group ofabout 7,000 species? The answer –invasive species. While many arefound throughout the West, one ofthe most harmful is the winterannual grass called cheatgrass,alias downy brome.

Cheatgrass found its way to theUnited States from Europe and Asiain the late 1800s on the backs oflivestock, and in some grain and hayfeed. By 1920, it firmly establisheditself as a formidable invasive plant.

It is a plant species with fewendearing qualities. Cheatgrass is not very nutritious or palatable tolivestock and wildlife, although livestock will graze on it in somedesert habitats in the winter andspring, and mule deer will browseon it in early spring.

When cheatgrass is present, livestock overgraze native plants,causing direct competition withmule deer for food. But that's not theworst of it. Overgrazing by livestockactually helps cheatgrass gain afoothold, both on the overgrazedland, and on nearby land where

invasive plantsmay not haveexisted.

What givescheatgrass theability to out-compete nativeplants? JohnGrahame andThomas Sisk,editors of"Canyons, cultures andenvironmentalchange: Anintroduction tothe land-usehistory of theColoradoPlateau," apublicationfrom theCenter forEnvironmentalSciences andEducation atNorthernArizona

University,describe the

unique ability of cheatgrass to outcompete native plants.

"Most native bunchgrasses of theColorado Plateau are perennial,whereas annual plants like cheat-grass grow from a seed, then flower,set seed, and die every year.Cheatgrass usually germinates in falland grows during winter, oppositethe cycle followed by commonnative perennial grasses. By the timethe rain stops in spring, cheatgrassalready is maturing its seeds. Unlikenative bunchgrasses, cheatgrass thendies by the end of July, avoiding thehottest and driest part of summer.

6

“We’re so far behind the

curve in terms of a land-

scape scale that we’ll never

catch up with prescribed

fire,” said Kilpatrick.

“Nature will catch us up,

as she has during a

drought.”

As a result of these interac-tions, Kilpatrick said an emphasis should be placed onmaintaining critical areas such as important winter ranges.

“We need to put as muchmanagement effort on importantwinter ranges, keep them unfrag-mented in terms of oil develop-ment and maintain high qualityforages,” said Kilpatrick.

Kilpatrick attributes increasesin predation with habitat frag-mentation.

“When you fragment the habitat, prey doesn’t have thelandscape to escape predators.Predators have a much easiertime catching prey in reduced

Burned sagebrush habitat from a wildfire that has regrown into exotic pant cover of mustard and cheatgrass in the foreground.The area in the middle of the picture was disced and planted with a mixture of native and nonnative seeds. The dark green hillsin the background did not burn and contain native sagebrush. By Ken Gray.

C o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 7


Chea

tgra

ss"Dead cheatgrass burns easily,

causing early and abundant wild-fires which tend to damage or killnative grasses. During a fire, early-maturing cheatgrass seeds can takeadvantage of many nutrients thefire releases to grow large and produce abundant seed, over athousand per plant in some cases.

"Because cheatgrass quicklydevelops a large root system in thespring, by the time native grassseedlings start to grow in April orMay, cheatgrass has stolen mostwater out of the top foot of soil.Although mature native grassescan get water from lower soilregions, seedlings cannot get theirroots deep enough into soil toaccess water before drought setsin, and thus, die of thirst. Withoutthis ability to reproduce, nativegrasses inevitably decline, and soover time, cheatgrass becomesmore and more common untileventually it dominates. Cheatgrassoften opens the way for secondaryinvaders such as knapweed and thistle."

A strong invader like cheatgrassposes two threats to mule deer.Cheatgrass outcompetes nativeperennial forage, and increases thefrequency and intensity of wildfires, altering the quality ofsagebrush habitat.

When cheatgrass takes hold, itcan ultimately outcompete everynative plant, creating a monocul-ture, or a stand of plants that contain one or a few species.Except for the brief period inspring when new green shoots ofcheatgrass emerge from the soil,stands of solid cheatgrass haveabout as much benefit to muledeer as a paved parking lot.

Cal McCluskey, Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) Senior WildlifeSpecialist, said cheatgrass is alter-ing large tracts of land in the West.

Vast stands of cheatgrass causefrequent, large fires, much to thedetriment of mule deer habitat.Intense frequent fires destroynative shrubs such as antelope bitterbrush, an important food formule deer.

What is being done about thecontinued threat of invadingplants?

The BLM is taking aggressivesteps to learn more about thespread of invasive plants andlarge-scale landscape changes thathave occurred since European settlement. And they're developingnew and different approaches tocombat nonnatives.

McCluskey said the ColumbiaRiver Basin and Great Basin are ofparticular concern to the BLM.

"Those are the two ecoregionsthat have had the greatest invasionproblems with cheatgrass andother annuals like Medusahead,"said McCluskey.

McCluskey said an effort isunderway in the BLM to get a better handle on the extent ofchange on the landscape withinthe sagebrush ecosystem.

"We have a major effort under-way to look at sagebrush habitatthroughout its range, but particu-larly as it relates to sage grouse,"said McCluskey. “We're workingwith the United States GeologicalSurvey to put together a map ofsagebrush for the entire West toshow current versus historical distribution."

Other large-scale efforts areunderway, as well. The BLM isleading the Great BasinRestoration Initiative, an intera-gency effort to restore areasburned by fire. Reseeding andchanging grazing practices are twopossible restoration strategies.

"The catalyst for that initiativewas the bad fire year of 1991 inthe Intermountain West," saidMcCluskey. "Several million acresburned, some of which was signifi-cant mule deer winter range."

Through the Great BasinRestoration Initiative, the BLM inNevada is cooperating with stateand local agencies and nonprofitorganizations to restore and main-tain native plant communities, andslow or stop the spread of invasiveplants on about 10 million acres ofpublic land.

McCluskey also talked aboutthe BLM being the biggestlandowner of sagebrush habitat inthe West, and the importance ofusing fire to manage sagebrush.

"We have a major fire rehabili-tation program to go back intoareas that burn and reseed," saidMcCluskey. "State wildlife agenciesprovide the native seed and bareroot stock. We target the areaswith the highest probability of success."

Reducing the size and frequen-cy of fires by creating fire barrierssuch as green strips is anothereffective strategy on the rise in the BLM.

"We've had some success withplanting firebreaks using greenstripping. We're planting themwith perennial grasses that greenup later and stay green long afterthe cheatgrass is cured," saidMcCluskey.

The BLM has another tool to fight invasive plants. Use ofchemicals such as pre-emergentsmay prevent cheatgrass from germinating, lessening its ability tooutcompete natives.

McCluskey emphasized there is no one solution to control thespread of cheatgrass, or to improvehabitats that have been invaded by cheatgrass.

"It's a combination of treat-ments," said McCluskey. "There is no panacea."

What does the future hold forwildlife habitats? McCluskey saidit's important to look at what'shappening on a very large scale.

"We're caught between a rockand a hard spot from our programperspective,” said McCluskey.“We're grappling internally withthis in our agency. There's thisJeckyll and Hyde personality witha minerals mission on one sideand a wildlife conservation mandate on the other side." Thatconflict makes land use allocationand management very challenging.

Understanding how sagebrushcommunities have changed overtime and the management actionsneeded to restore these importanthabitats are keys to lessening thethreat of invasive plants and restoring lands critical to muledeer survival.

Livestock management Livestock management on western

lands could be characterized asgood, bad and ugly. Fortunately formule deer, there’s a whole lot ofgood going on.

Utah Division of WildlifeResources Big Game CoordinatorSteve Cranney has seen elements of all three on lands in and aroundUtah and the West. But overall,Cranney is very positive about usingcattle to manage wildlife habitat – if it’s done correctly.

“From our standpoint, livestockgrazing has a lot of positives andnegatives,” said Cranney. “When youdo it right, it does have its use.”

Well-managed livestock grazingcan improve the types and quantitiesof desirable plants, and maintain andcreate much-needed openings indense habitat.

Cranney said his agency usesintense spring grazing on a numberof wildlife management areas in biggame winter ranges to graze grasses,and maintain and encourage growthof mule deer browse species.

“In the spring, cattle concentrateon the grass species, where the succulence is in the vegetation,” saidCranney. “Spring grazing encouragesthe growth of browse species such assage and bitterbrush. The cattle areon the ground only for a month to amonth and a half in the spring –strictly in the spring.”

Cranney said he varies how heuses cattle each year, depending onthe status of the habitat, and the vegetation response he would like tosee. He said his agency would usegrazing even if it had the ability touse fire at any time because severalplant species on deer winter rangedon’t respond favorably to fire, particularly sagebrush.

Cranney said, “We can’t just torchall winter range areas. Some browsespecies such as mountain mahoganyand oakbrush respond favorably tofire, but sagebrush does not. Howbitterbrush responds depends on theintensity of the fire. Spring grazingcan be a valuable tool on many winter ranges.”

Cranney commented that springgrazing has other benefits, as well. Ithelps the local ranching communitywhile helping mule deer.

“We enter into agreements withranchers that help us,” said Cranney.“Spring grazing is very valuable tolivestock people, too, because theircattle have been on hay all winter,and the ranchers are anxious to gettheir cattle off their ground so theycan plant.”

7

"Cheatgrass has created a

fire cycle that has altered

substantially the historical

fire cycle,” said

McCluskey. “It has

increased the frequency of

fires, and in many areas,

once the landscape gets

burned two or three times,

it often comes back in a

monoculture of cheatgrass,

just prime for burning

again and again."


Livestock grazing sounds like awin-win-win situation for statewildlife agencies, ranchers andmule deer. The bad and the uglyside come into play when livestockare not managed properly.

Poor livestock grazing practicescan help spread invasive plants,interfere with plant succession,reduce nitrogen in the soil, andchange the plant community. Andimproper livestock grazing in andaround riparian areas may harmthe stream and the rich diversity ofwildlife that thrive in these envi-ronments. Overgrazing reduceswater quality, changes stream flow,compacts and erodes soil, andaffects native plants and animalsthat live alongside and in streams.

Tom Fleischner, in his 1994Conservation Biology article,"Ecological costs of livestock graz-ing in western North America,"said that livestock grazing has had"the most severe impact on one ofthe biologically richest habitats inthe region," and states that, "muchof the ecological integrity of a variety of North American habitatsare at risk” because of poor grazing practices.

What kind of risk?Cottonwood/willow forests alongarid western streams have declinedabout 90 percent since pre-settle-ment times. A 1988 report on"Restoring Degraded RiparianAreas on Western Rangelands"noted that "those narrow bands of green adjoining rivers, streams,and lakes, are crucial to the ecological health of arid westernrangelands."

Cranney commented that cattledo the most harm in riparian areas.

“If they’re not fenced out, thenthey camp on it,” said Cranney.“The woody species and streambank cover in riparian areas gettaken out.” Cranney said this canbe a serious problem, especially instates like Utah that are dry, andhave limited riparian areas.

The good news is that the badand ugly can be avoided. How canland managers manage livestockgrazing for the benefit of peopleand wildlife? By establishing asound range management programbased on good range science andtailored to the local area. A goodrange management programshould have the following elements:

1. Conduct prescribed burns toimprove plant quality.

2. Do not graze stressed rangeland.

3. Control the number of livestockon rangeland to prevent overgraz-ing. Some ranchers recommendstocking at a rate less than 70 percent of average rainfall carrying capacity.

4. Use rotation grazing to preventintensive spot grazing.

5. Fence riparian areas and provideoff stream watering sources.

Cranney said state of the artwildlife management includesmanaging riparian areas as pastures with fence control.

“When the animals are in ripari-an areas, they are there strictly to

benefit those areas,” commentedCranney. “The areas are grazedoutside the fences.” This results inbetter grazing in upland areas, andminimal damage to streams andriparian habitat.

Cranney said that sometimes thebest wildlife management practiceon winter ranges is not the mostaesthetic, and visa versa.

“You go to Salt Lake City wherecattle have been excluded fordecades and it looks good from awatershed standpoint, very littleopen bare ground, and yet it’s poorfor big game because there are fewbrowse species,” said Cranney.“That’s why we concentrate onwinter range areas. In most ofUtah, the condition of winter

range and the amount of it is critical.”

Cranney said one strategy hisagency uses to protect mule deerwinter range is wildlife easements.

Said Cranney, “Wildlife ease-ments leave the property in thehands of the owners and allowthem to conduct operations com-patible with good wildlife manage-ment.” He also noted the mostimportant aspect of wildlife easements is that they prevent subdivision of property into small ranchettes.

“Subdividing is the biggestenemy,” said Cranney.

Glenn Erickson, Chief ofMontana Department of Fish,

Wildlife and Parks WildlifeManagement Bureau, echoedCranney’s emphasis on keepinglarge tracts of land in private own-ership. “We want to keep large,connected adjacent blocks of landin private ownership if we can.”

He said his agency places astrong emphasis on working withprivate landowners to improvelivestock grazing practices.

“We’re providing consultation tolandowners whenever they requestit,” said Erickson. “We have a cou-ple of people assigned full time todeal with grazing systems, and wehave a couple of consultants thatwe work with through Montana

State University. So there’s a bigresource of information we provide.”

Erickson said his agency uses livestock grazing to improve the vegetation and soil on the state’swildlife management areas.

“We modify how livestock graze,and where they graze,” saidErickson. “We typically try to protectriparian zones and manage vegeta-tion zones in the pastures. It’s a restrotation system, and the purpose is to benefit the vegetation for all species.”

Erickson commented that workingwith private landowners can multi-ply benefits to wildlife. “In somecases, we have our management

area tied to adjacent private land,and we’re able to expand the advan-tage using a cooperative agreement,”said Erickson. “The landowner benefits and we benefit.”

Western wildlife agencies andprovinces will continue to place anemphasis on positive working rela-tionships with landowners and live-stock managers to create mutuallybeneficial programs that ultimatelyenhance wildlife habitat for muledeer and other species. In doing so,land managers can assure that proper livestock management willcontinue to be a strong, positivechange agent for mule deer habitat.

8

Grazing by livestock is a common and sometimes competing land use on many mule deer ranges. By Len Carpenter.


Stroud said efforts must befocused on "larger habitatassessments coupled withmanagement solutions," butthat the direct effects of large-scale landscape changes aredifficult to quantity.

"We can't quantify the spe-cific effects of coalbedmethane development," saidStroud. "We don't know theeffects on mule deer from astress standpoint." As anexample, he added that muledeer are living in and aroundtowns that seemingly aren'tstressed by people.

But Stroud said wildlife areaffected by development.

"The direct effects ofdevelopment to mule deer arehabitat removal combinedwith the pressures of existing

grazing of livestock," said Stroud."You're reducing the forage base sothere's more competition for what'sleft."

The BLM’s Senior WildlifeSpecialist Cal McCluskey believes itis important to look at oil, mineraland gas exploration on a large scalethat crosses political boundaries.

"Places like Powder River basinand southwestern Wyoming are keyareas, not just for Wyoming, butregionally, and nationally, becauseof the large mule deer winter rangesthey provide," said McCluskey.

McCluskey said the BLM is devel-oping a sagebrush biome conserva-tion strategy to help identify keyareas within the landscape through-out the sagebrush ecosystem. Hisagency will use that information tohelp influence land use allocations.

"Land use allocation is where therubber meets the road," saidMcCluskey. "One of the limiting fac-tors on past land use plans is they'vebeen developed with blinders on,ignoring what's going on by lookingat the administrative boundary theland covers. To make better deci-sions that have longer term value for all resources, you have to take a broader look on a largerscale, and ask how it relates tosmaller pieces of land. That will help influence decisions."

9

You've readthe bumper stickers -"Wyoming - Like noPlace on Earth." And"Wyoming Wildlife -

Worth the Watching." The sceneryand solitude of the wildness ofWyoming is special in the heartsof residents and nonresidents alike.

Add 100,000 wellheads to alandscape that is already feelingthe effects of other kinds of energydevelopments, and "Wyoming -Like no Place on Earth," may takeon a new meaning significantlydifferent from the one bumpersticker creators had in mind. ThePowder River Basin Oil and GasProject could be the catalyst forthat change in meaning.

The project is a proposedcoalbed methane developmentthat would encompass over 7 million acres in northeasternWyoming. Coalbed methane is aform of natural gas generated incoal seams. There has always beenan interest in extracting thisresource from the land, but tech-nology prevented it from happen-ing. Recent advances in technolo-gy are forcing Wyoming to bracefor unprecedented coalbedmethane production, with an esti-mated 50,000 to 100,000 wellsdrilled in the next several decades.

Development can sometimescreate wildlife habitat, and in thecase of this project, some above-ground improvements such aswatering sites for wildlife seempossible.

But there are serious concerns,as well. Biologists believe thatmule deer and their habitats canbe harmed because of oil, gas andmineral exploration and extraction.An increase in mortality, ingestionof toxins, loss of habitat, barriers tomigratory mule deer that movefrom winter to summer ranges, and disturbance that fragments and degrades habitats have thepotential to affect mule deer populations.

Wyoming Game and FishBiologist Steve Kilpatrick said oiland gas exploration in mule deer

winter range may have negativeindirect effects, as well as directeffects.

“The direct effects are roads anddisturbance,” said Kilpatrick.“Once you have those, you havefragmented the habitat. Big gamecan’t always jump roads. Then youset yourself up for successful firesuppression operations where youcan intercept fires. We can moreeasily control and master naturalprocesses with roads. And we can’tgo into these places to do pre-scribed burns because of the risk.We’re now limited with going inthere and doing mechanical thingsto mimic fire, but these techniquesaren’t as effective because ofreductions in nutrient recycling.”

And there are other issues, aswell. Ground water has to beremoved to extract methane fromcoal seams. If this water is contam-inated, where will it be placed? Ifit isn't contaminated, where will itbe used? If additional water isplaced above ground, it couldeffect a positive change by creat-ing new wetlands. Or, it couldchange stream flow and the habitats of native fish.

Coalbed methane projects havethe potential to disturb wildlife atcritical times of the year. Coalbed

methane wellheads are small, buteach comes complete with its ownroad and utility line. No oneknows the effect this project wouldhave on sensitive wildlife such assage grouse, a species of concernthroughout the West.

Development has the potentialto affect more than native fish andwildlife. Development will attractmore people to Wyoming, placingadditional stresses on existingresources. Construction of newpower plants will place greaterdemands on water resources.

One of the most significantpotential impacts is the visualeffect on the landscape ofWyoming. Visions of breathtakinglandscapes may be cluttered withthe signs of energy exploration.

How do state fish and wildlifeagencies respond to these challenges?

Dan Stroud, a habitat biologistwith the Wyoming Game and FishDepartment in Pinedale, saidissues concerning shrub habitats,sensitive species and developmentare creating a crisis in agenciesthroughout the West.

"We simply are not able to keepup with the extensive wildlifehabitat management needs weface across our vast landscape,"said Shroud.

Oil development southwest of Big Piney in western Wyoming mule deer winter range. By Dan Stroud.

The Mounting Pressure of Development

2

Oil- Gas - Mineral Exploration and Mining


Regardless of the types of deci-sions made, diligent, consistentlong-term monitoring of mineral,oil and gas exploration sites willbe necessary to truly understandthe effects of this type of develop-ment on the landscape, people,and native fish and wildlife. In themeantime, Wyoming is one ofmany western states and provincesthat has the difficult challenge ofgrappling with the energy needs ofits citizens and nation, with theimpressive landscapes that make“Wyoming – Like no Place on Earth.”

between a rock and a hard spotbecause of the differing values thepublic places on predators.

- Depending on a variety of factors,reducing predators may or may nothelp increase numbers of muledeer in a given area.

Societal ValuesMany segments of society place

differing values on predators, withranchers and animal rights activistson opposite sides of the spectrum.Ranchers and farmers don’t appre-ciate a mountain lion, wolf or coy-ote in or around livestock pasturesbecause predators are seen as apotential loss of personal propertyand income.

Animal rights organizations andothers place a value on predatorsas charismatic megafauna, largewildlife species that embody thesymbol of wilderness.

And biologists have individualviews regarding predators becauseof personal experiences, and pub-lished scientific information that isconflicting in its conclusions aboutthe roles predators play in themanagement of prey populations.

To understand how the values ofthese three groups come into playand affect the ability of state agen-cies and provinces to managepredators requires a short coursein the population dynamics ofmule deer.

The Numbers GameMule deer populations increase

when more deer are born than die,and decrease when more deer diethan are born. Most mortality indeer herds occurs in young deerimmediately after birth, or duringmid- to late winter. Carryingcapacity, or the ability of the habi-tat to support the herd, helpsdetermine the size of the herd.Carrying capacity is estimatedbased on the body condition ofmule deer and the amount of veg-etation that is browsed by deer.

Additive and compensatory arethe two types of mortality thatoccur in mule deer populations.An increase in one cause of mor-tality or the introduction of a newtype of mortality may or may notincrease the total number of ani-mals that die, depending onwhether that mortality is additiveor compensatory. If the increase orintroduction of mortality increasesthe number of deer that die, themortality is additive. If it is com-pensated for by reductions in other

types of mortality, and thereforedoesn’t change the total number of deer that die, then it is compensatory.

It is believed that when a muledeer population is at carryingcapacity (the ability of the capacityof the habitat to support it), mortal-

ity is compensatory. Mortalitybecomes more additive and lesscompensatory as the populationfalls further below the carryingcapacity of the habitat.

A mule deer herd that is at orabove the carrying capacity of itshabitat may produce fewer fawnsthan one that is below carryingcapacity, and mortality will behigh so that the populationremains stable.

A herd that exceeds the abilityof the habitat to support it will bein poor body condition, and havepoor birth rates and high deathrates. If the population continuesto remain above carrying capacity,it will damage its food resources,so that even when the herd doesrecover, carrying capacity may bereduced and the herd may beunable to return to previous popu-lation numbers.

Predation and carrying capacityof the habitat are linked. When adeer herd is at carrying capacity,the number of deaths equals thenumber of offspring that survive toage one. In this herd, it is notimportant if predators cause somemortality, because if the predatorsare removed, another factor willcause a similar amount of mortali-ty. In other words, mortality iscompensatory.

The further below carryingcapacity the herd becomes, themore additive mortality plays a

role in reducing the number of muledeer. The problem is that it isextremely difficult for biologists topinpoint which mortality factors areplaying the greatest role in a muledeer herd on the sliding scale ofadditive and compensatory mortality.

10

When farmersand ranchersbegan settlingthe AmericanWest, they

arrived with livestock to graze,seeds to plant and a mentality totame the West. They perceived thegreatest threat to their livestockand crops was predators. Predatormanagement, labeled "one of themost controversial issues involvingNorth American wildlife" by JamesTrefethen a quarter of a centuryago in his book, "An AmericanCrusade for Wildlife," continues tobe highly controversial today. Andthere are few signs this controversyis going to lessen.

Six animals are identified asmule deer predators – gray wolf,mountain lion, bobcat, coyote,black bear and grizzly bear. Thefirst three on the list have to killprey species to survive. Coyotesand bears have a varied diet thatincludes plants, thus they can anddo kill prey, but do not have to doso to survive.

Predators are controversial forthree primary reasons:

- Different segments of society placedifferent values on predators.

- Agencies responsible for manage-ment of predators are caught

A Place forPredators

3

Grizzly Bear. By Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Some biologists believe mortalityis density dependent. For example, ifone type of mortality is reduced in adeer herd that is nearing capacity,another type of mortality will replaceit. In a herd that has severe winter asits only major mortality factor, hunt-ing does before winter would nothurt the population. Fewer does willlikely die during the severe winter tocompensate for those that were har-vested. On the other hand, if the doehunting occurs before a mild winter,the mortality could be consideredadditive.

What does all of this have to dowith predation? That all depends.

Long-term drought can reduce theability of a habitat to support muledeer, causing significant declines insome populations. Drought reducesthe quality of the habitat and canaffect the body condition of deer,potentially making them more vul-nerable to predation.

If predators contribute to signifi-cant mortality in a mule deer popu-lation, and that population is nearcarrying capacity, removing preda-tors may not cause the population toincrease because other types of mor-tality may kick in and compensatefor predation. On the other hand, ifpredation is causing a mule deerpopulation to exist below the abilityof the habitat to support them,reducing predators may allow the

C o n t i n u e d o n p a g e 1 1


mule deer herd to increase untilcompensatory factors kick in. The true question is not whetherpredation affects mule deer, buthow much.

Research ResultsThe few predation studies that

have been conducted on mule andblack-tailed deer have been somewhat limited in their ability todraw conclusions across mule deerpopulations. But biologists havebeen able to glean some usefulinformation:

- Weather affects the impact predation may have on mule deerby changing deer forage and cover,the densities of prey species andthe physical condition of deer.

- Wolves can effectively reduce deerpopulations, particularly on islandhabitats, and especially if they arethe primary predator.

- In some undisturbed arctic envi-ronments, severe weather orhuman over-harvest can cause amule deer population to decline.Predation can further reduce thatpopulation or prevent it fromrecovering. However, most of theenvironments where mule deerexist today have been altered byfire suppression, development,fragmentation of habitat and otherfactors. In these habitats (most ofthe West), biologists believe preda-tion does not cause declines in deerpopulations. The effect predatorshave on prey populations in theseenvironments is more complex andrelated to how humans affect pred-ators, prey and habitat, and thetypes and densities of predatorsthat exist.

- The effects of predators are compli-cated because there is more thanone species of predator – wolveshave to kill and eat prey species tosurvive, while coyotes can surviveon plants. If mule deer and largemammal populations decrease,coyotes are less susceptible to theseprey reductions because of theirability to eat a variety of foods.

- To warrant a reduction in preda-tors, predation should be identi-fied as an important mortality fac-tor, and managers must estimatethe population of deer relative tothe carrying capacity of its habitat.

What does all of this mean?Despite everything we've learnedabout predators in the past centu-ry, they are as "good or bad" asthey were 100 years ago.

Jim deVos of the Arizona Gameand Fish Department said, "Incases where you can'tdemonstrate that preda-tion is, in fact, a popula-tion regulator, predatorcontrol is nonsensical.When you can demon-strate predators are hav-ing an effect, predatorcontrol can be effective."

The effects predatorshave on prey populationsare dependent uponhabitat conditions, thenumbers of predators andprey, and the sex and ageratios of predator and prey popula-tions. Sorting through these factorsmakes it very difficult to determinethe effects of predation on muledeer and elk populations becauseevery mule deer population is different, and other factors thataffect a mule deer population willdetermine the extent of the effectof predators.

Widespread predator manage-ment may or may not increase amule deer population. Smallermule deer populations may bemore susceptible to predators thanlarger ones. Larger populations canafford more losses to predationthan smaller ones. If a mule deerpopulation experiences one ormore severe winters or droughtsand their numbers are low, theymay be more susceptible to predators until their populationnumbers increase.

maintain artificially high numbers.While this has the potential toslow the growth of mule deer pop-ulations, scientific studies showthat reducing predators does notincrease the number of fawns thatsurvive to adulthood. And it's the

number of fawns that survive toadulthood that determines thegrowth rate of a mule deer population.

If there are big changes to habi-tat that result in different move-ment patterns for mule deer, theycould become more susceptible topredation. Changes in habitat mayalso change predator communities.In the last century, there has beena shift in the predator communityfrom wolves to coyotes. Human-induced factors have contributedto loss and change of wolf preyand wolf habitat, causing the elimination of wolves in manyparts of the United States.

Recommendations forPredator Management

Many of the human influencesthat have caused changes to howpredators and prey interact makemanaging healthy populations ofboth difficult and challenging.Some segments of the public wanteffective predator managementprograms so that their livestockand wildlife are protected, whileothers place a value on the pres-ence of predators in wildlands. Asthis debate continues, mule deerpopulations have been declining.

Increasing concern withdeclines in mule deer and black-tailed deer populations in largeparts of the western United Statesprompted several wildlife profes-sionals to review wildlife researchand make recommendations onfuture research and managementof predators.

Wildlife professionals determinedthat reducing the number of predators in an area may help deer populations if:

- Predator management occurs whenthe deer population is lower than theability of the habitat to support it.

- Predation is identified as a factorthat is limiting the ability of the deerpopulation to grow.

- The predator population is reducedenough to yield results.

- Reduction in predators occurs just before reproduction of predators or prey.

- Reduction in predators occurs on ascale of less than 250 square miles.

They also determined that preda-tor management did not successfullyimprove mule deer populationswhen:

- Mule deer populations were at ornear habitat carrying capacity.

- Predation was not a key factor limit-ing the ability of the deer populationto grow.

- Reduction of predators did notreduce predator populations to a significant degree.

- Reduction of predators occurs onlarge-scale areas.

Wildlife professionals recommenda wildlife management plan be completed before reducing predatornumbers. That plan should includethe status of mule deer populationsand the population objective desiredfrom a reduction in predators,desired removal goals for the preda-tor species, timing, method andscale of removal efforts, and adescription of other factors that maybe depressing mule deer popula-tions. The plan should also includemonitoring and evaluation of preda-tor and prey populations, and thethresholds when reduction of preda-tors will cease or be modified.

Professionals also recommendlong-term studies on coyote, moun-tain lion and black bear, and humandimensions work to better under-stand public acceptance of predatormanagement, and a cost-benefitanalysis of predator control.

The debate about the good andbad of predators will likely not beresolved in the near future as habi-tats continue to be fragmented andsusceptible to human influences,and the public continues to alignitself with one or more “stances” on predators.

11

"In cases where you can't

demonstrate that predation

is, in fact, a population reg-

ulator, predator control is

nonsensical. When you can

demonstrate predators are

having an effect, predator

control can be effective."

In years when mule deer popu-lations are lean, some predatorssuch as mountain lions and wolvesmay consume several wildlifespecies including elk and smallmammals, causing the predators to

The wolf is one of several mule deer predators. By George Andrejko.


It doesn’t seem possiblethat raindrops orsnowflakes would affectthe ability of mule deerto thrive. But in fact,

precipitation is a key factor thatdrives mule deer populations.

The amount and timing of pre-cipitation affects plant growth andquality, deer diet and nutrition, theability of a habitat to support apopulation of deer, distributionand movement of deer, predationand management. Also, extremeweather such as droughts, pro-longed periods of extreme cold orexcessive snow can directly causemule deer mortality.

Plant growth and qualityPrecipitation affects soil mois-

ture, ambient temperatures andannual plant growing seasons, allof which affect the plants thatmule deer eat on winter and sum-mer ranges. In desert environ-ments, precipitation is critical fornew spring growth. In northern cli-mates, severe winters with largeamounts of snowfall may increasemortality because deer do nothave access to food.

Habitat and Deer Nutrition Mule deer eat browse tips, forbs

and grasses, although their diet isprimarily shrubs. How much ofeach kind of food a mule deer eatsis directly related to the availabilityof it in the environment. Duringyears of normal rainfall, deer mayfeed primarily on nutrient-richdeciduous shrubs. In years ofdrought, they may eat mostly ever-green and drought-resistant plants.

Extremes in precipitation candirectly affect the ability of muledeer to eat nutritious foods. Forexample, deep snow can reduce

availability of forage in northernclimates, while drought can lessenavailability of forbs and grasses indesert environments.

Inadequate precipitationreduces the availability, annualgrowth, digestibility and quality of

important plants, and forces deerto eat more food with less nutri-tional value. Each of these affectsenergy levels and the overall abili-ty of a habitat to support a muledeer population.

If winter and spring precipita-tion are low and there is little newgrowth of plants, deer are forcedto eat older plants that have lessnutritional value and are more dif-ficult to digest. Poor forage candelay the age at which deerbecome sexually mature. Poornutrition makes it difficult for doesto successfully rear fawns becauseof the inability to provide ade-quate milk during lactation. Even iffawns survive, their small size maymake them more susceptible topredation, or the rigors of winter.

Severe winters with significantsnowfall and cold temperaturesmay lead to malnutrition of deer,resulting in fewer fawns produced,and a higher than average death offawns and adults.

12

Precipitation-a driving force

4

Drought is a long-term, natural,cyclic event that is linked todeclines in mule deer populations,particularly in arid regions. Bothseasonal and long-term droughtscan affect the survival of deerfawns. In general, higher levels ofrainfall correlate to improved pro-duction, whereas lower levels ofrainfall have been associated withdeclines in production and num-bers of mule deer.

Distribution and Movement of Deer

Precipitation influences the dis-tribution and movements of muledeer in northern, cooler climatesand drier, desert climates. Homeranges of mule deer increase witha decrease in quality habitat

because the animals need to rangefarther to meet their nutritionalneeds.

During severe winters with deepsnowfall, deer may be crowded onsmall winter ranges, unable totravel through deep snow to meettheir nutritional needs. Providinggood cover to help deer conserveenergy is critical during severewinters.

In desert environments, plantdensity and rainfall seem to begood predictors of distribution and productivity.

In mountainous regions, seasonal migrations are based onavailability of food resources.Snowstorms cause deer to migratein fall, while migrations from win-ter to summer ranges occur with

lush, spring growth and recedingsnowlines. In mountainous regionswith less severe climates, migrationmay be closely associated withchanges in relative humidity.

PredationInteractions between predators

and prey are related to the ability of a habitat to support a populationof deer, weather, human use patterns, the type of predator andchanges in habitat. For example,during drought periods in Texas,mule deer numbers are below carrying capacity, and predation bymountain lions may be significant.

DiseaseLittle scientific research exists to

suggest there is a direct relationshipbetween spread of disease in deerand precipitation. Deer may concen-trate around water during dry, hotsummers, however it is more likelythat drought causes poor nutrition indeer, leading to greater susceptibilityto disease.

PollutionAcid precipitation can damage

foliage and roots of vegetation anddestroy soil nutrients and organisms,resulting in greater susceptibility todisease, drought, and frost, andreduced germination and seedlingsurvival. Acid precipitation may alsolower trace minerals in forage, animportant component in the diet ofungulates.

ManagementDeer populations may be

managed with greater accuracy bymaking correlations between climateand survival of deer fawns. Meansnow depth, ambient temperatures,wind speed, drought severity indexand several other climatic factorscan help managers predict fawn survival, particularly in extremedesert scrub and montane coniferenvironments.

Group of mule deer bedded in deep snow in Colorado. By Len Carpenter.


effect on wildlife management inthe future.

The Center for the AmericanWest has a web site calledWestern Futures at www.center-west.org. The purpose of the site isto describe projected growth in theAmerican West. From 1960 to2050, exburbs are projected togrow from about 10.5 million to40.8 million. The human popula-tion in the West is expected togrow from 61.3 million in 2000 to109 million by 2050. Every state is expected to show an increase in urban, suburban and exburbareas, and a loss of rural areas as 2050 approaches.

Land developers can make well-intentioned attempts to incorporatenatural escape cover near areaswhere mule deer can find ade-quate food. But overall, attemptingto create habitat for mule deer inand around urban areas is a baddeal for both people and deer.Why?

- Large numbers of deer in urbanareas creates havoc with locallandowners who don’t appreciatemule deer eating their expensiveyard shrubs.

As the human population contin-ues to grow, more pressure will beplaced on wildlife forced to adapt tothe effects of urbanization and habi-tat fragmentation. Fragmentation ofland from development of all kinds,whether it be homes, ranchettes orgas and oil wells, poses one of thegreatest challenges to land managerswho must balance the needs andwants of a citizenry that values open spaces and wildlands, yetwhose very presence compromisesthat goal.

13

The American West isgrowing and chang-ing, and nothingindicates there isgoing to be any

slowing to the development andsprawl into what was once consid-ered "natural landscapes." Howpeople and wildlife fare as theyattempt to coexist will determinewhether or not people place avalue on large tracts of openspace.

In 2000, Bill Riebsame of theDepartment of Geography at theUniversity of Colorado-Boulder,presented a paper titled, "Life inthe New West: Human and Wild,"at the Western Association of Fishand Wildlife Agencies conferencein Redmond, Oregon. During thatpresentation, Riebsame said theAmerican West was "experiencingrapid demographic, economic, andcultural change," and was growingfaster than any other region in theUnited States. Most of the growthis occurring in what he called"exburbs," or non-metropolitanareas next to cities. Exburbs arecharacterized as having one houseper 10 to 40 acres, and it is theseareas that will likely have the most

The pace of development and

human immigration into

western states and provinces

has caused of rapid loss of

mule deer habitat. In a six-

year period from 1992 to

1997, 16 million acres in the

United States were developed.

A large percentage of those

acres were in places occupied

by mule deer.

- More deer in and around urban areas results in more vehicle/deercollisions.

- Urbanization may change move-ments of mule deer, causing deerthat were once migratory to becomeyearlong residents.

- When wildlife become concentratedin an area, there is greater possibili-ty for spread of disease.

What can be done to discouragethe presence of mule deer in developed areas?

- Human transportation corridorssuch as highways, railways andcanals pose threats to both peopleand game mammals, especially whenthose corridors cross a traditionalmigration path. To minimize interac-tions with mule deer, vegetationalong transportation right-of-waysshould be planted with species thatare undesirable to wildlife.

- Construction that disrupts wildlifemigration paths should be avoided.

- Passage structures along transporta-tion corridors should be designed tominimize wildlife loss.

- Creating wildlife habitat in urbaninterfaces should be avoided.Instead, set aside good wildlife habi-tat in areas removed from urbansprawl to keep wildlife away fromhuman populations.

Wilderness Breakup

5

Selling off critical deer winter range in Utah’s Uinta Basin. By Steve Cranney.

Interstate 70 in Vail, Colorado. The highway greatly impairs the movement of deer between summer and winter range in spite of efforts to maintain seasonal movements by building anunderpass specifically for deer. By John H. Ellenberger.


Competition isdefined as a rivalryor a battle of willsand opposing sides,and brings to mind

the classic image of sports teamsgoing head to head on the grid-iron. But competition betweenspecies in the animal world takeson a different meaning, especiallywhen the subjects in question aremule deer and elk.

Competition occurs when twospecies use the same limitedresource, and one of the two suf-fers in some way because of thatuse. But for true competition totake place, the suffering mustoccur at the population level,where one of the two species haslower survival rates or fewer youngthat survive to adulthood. Merelyviewing mule deer and elk in thesame valley foraging on similarplants is not true species competi-tion.

Given the definition of competi-tion in wildlife, do elk, whosenumbers have been increasing inthe West over the past severaldecades, compete with mule deer,and if so, in what way does thatcompetition affect mule deer pop-ulations? Looking at adaptationsmule deer and elk have developedover time can provide clues thatmay help answer the question.

1. Energy - Summer heat and severewinter conditions place the great-est stress on mule deer and elk.Mule deer movements and foragingbecome restricted in snow depthsof 10 inches or more, whereas elkare not adversely affected untilsnow depths reach 18 inches. Ifmule deer and elk are using thesame resources in severe weather,elk will have the advantage.

2. Digestion - Mule deer have small-er stomachs than elk and forage onshrubs and forbs, compared to thegrass-dominated diet of elk. Muledeer need better quality plants

with greater digestibility than elk.If resources are restricted becauseof habitat or weather, elk wouldhave the survival advantage.

3. Changes in habitat – Landscapechanges across the west have creat-ed habitats that may be better suit-ed for elk than mule deer.

4. Livestock - In some cases, deerand elk may completely leave anarea that is heavi-ly grazed by cat-tle. Competitionbetween muledeer and elk mayincrease if thesespecies are forcedto move from pre-ferred habitats toless suitablehabitat types.

5. The HumanFactor - Develop-ment in winterrange affects mule deer more thanelk because elk are capable of win-tering in higher elevations thanmule deer. Elk hunting seasonscan cause elk to move into densecover and forage in areas used by deer.

6. Parasites - Biting flies affect elk more than mule deer, andhorseflies carry a disease calledelaeophorosis, an arterial wormthat causes blindness, malformedantlers, loss of muzzle and ear tis-sue, and death in elk. Mule deerare unaffected by the disease, butare hosts for the worm.

7. Predation - The effects predatorssuch as mountain lions, blackbears, coyotes, grizzly bears andwolves have on prey populationsare dependent upon habitat condi-tions, the numbers of predatorsand prey, and the sex and ageratios of predator and prey populations.

8. Population Dynamics - Elk arelonger lived, produce fewer youngduring their life, and are found infairly stable habitats. Mule deerhave shorter lives, produce moreyoung during their life, and live inunstable habitats, or habitats thatchange over time.

Tom Keegan, Wildlife Managerwith the Idaho Department of Fishand Game, said that making astatement that elk are responsiblefor mule deer declines would notbe accurate because some muledeer populations have declined inthe absence of elk. And Keegansaid, "Other deer populations havegrown and responded well in con-junction with growing elk herds.

“The problem I see is half thepeople wanting more elk and halfthe people wanting more deer,”said Keegan. “One piece of landwon’t fit their expectations. Andwhat people want quickly changesall the time. At some point, stateagency managers are going to get

stuck between a rockand a hard place everytime they go down amanagement road.”

Fred Lindzey, AssistantWildlife CooperativeUnit Leader andProfessor at University ofWyoming, said habitatand weather are drivingforces for mule deer.

“A lot of livestock managementpractices create grasses that benefitelk more than mule deer,” saidLindzey. “Elk can physiologicallyhandle more roughage. So you endup with competition for the foodresources. Habitat manipulationsthat we have brought about have largely favored elk over mule deer.”

Lindzey said weather increasesthe potential for competitionbetween mule deer and elk.“There were very few historicrecords where we lost large num-bers of elk to bad weather,” hesaid. “At the same time, we reallylost a lot of mule deer during thesevere weather of the 80s. Muledeer are extremely sensitive to

14

Elk & Mule Deer

Interactions

6severe weather patterns. The muledeer population is being knockedback in local areas, and elk areincreasing, and weather has exacer-bated the situation.”

Lindzey said interactions betweenmule deer and elk generally don’toccur long-term. “I think these inter-actions occur periodically,” saidLindzey. “You’ve got mule deer onthat human-agriculture edge with theelk above them and people belowthem, and they can no longer driftfurther down into these valleys - it’sthe old winter range problem. Elkare separated from mule deer byvegetation, but in a bad year, theyfall down on top of the mule deer.Elk can physically displace muledeer or keep them from using theresources. This may happen one yearout of six.” But that one bad yearcan hurt a mule deer population,especially when winter range andtransition ranges are being lost todevelopment.

“Mule deer are driven by environ-mental factors,” said Lindzey. “We’velost critical and valuable mule deerwinter range. Most of these winterranges just sustained mule deerthrough the winter. They don’t get faton winter ranges – they just expectto break even. If you shorten thoseopportunities where they can moveto secure the greatest reduction inenergy – and that’s what is happen-ing with all this oil and gas develop-ment - then in a bad winter, you losethe fawns. If you can’t access thoseresources to mediate the effects ofweather, then you have adult sur-vival problems. These guys are engi-neered to handle the weather that isdumped on them. But now we’vestarted to muck up the good stuff.”

Lindzey stressed the importanceof long-term research to give biolo-gists the tools they need to makemanagement decisions, respond todevelopment issues and answerquestions about mule deer and elk interactions.

“If there’s anything

biologists are lacking as a

group, it’s long-term

research that elucidates the

influence of potential

impacts on populations.

Without those data, we’ll

always be sticking our

thumbs in the dike.”


15

ECOREGCoastal Rain Forest

California Woodland Chaparral

Intermountain West


16

REGIONS

Southwest Deserts

Northern Boreal Forest

Colorado Plateau

Great Plains


17

Mule Deer Regions-No Two are Alike

deer. The deer are primarily non-migratory, and are well distributedand occur at the greatest densities inearly successional habitats in thecentral and southern part of theregion. In the northern part of thisecoregion, deer numbers are greateston coastal islands, where marineweather lessens the severity of winter. In the far north, winter snowmay force deer to lower elevations.

Black-tailed deer are often unableto meet their nutritional require-ments year round. Fawns rarelybreed, and pregnancy rates for yearlings vary greatly from year toyear, but are generally low.

Deer in this region tend to beolder than in other regions becausethe amount of secure cover deer find in the dense forest limits huntersuccess.

Limiting Factor: The quality ofthe plants. Heavy rainfall and soilspoor in nitrogen cause nutrients toleach from the soil, and plants havemore moisture. Pound for pound, a deer consumes less nutrients whileforaging in coastal rain forest than inother regions.

Recommendations:

1. Create more grass, forb, shrub andsapling communities to improve food quality.

2. Maintain forest canopies in placeswhere snowfall is heavy.

3. Manage forests for high qualityplant foods to allow for large harvestof deer to reduce overwintering popu-lations, and thus reduce browsing onyoung conifers.

4. Survey for diseases and parasites.

5. Plant mast producing species suchas oak in dry and southern areas.

6. Conduct small, cool controlledburns.

No two mule deer populations are alike because wherethey live differs from one part of their range to another.Biologists refer to the different areas as “ecoregions”.By studying each ecoregion, biologists can better iden-tify the factors that are limiting the growth of mule deer

populations, and predict responses by mule deer populations tochanges in habitat. Habitat quality has an effect on survival of fawns,the most important factor in determining how well a population faresfrom season to season, and year to year.

Biologists have identified seven ecoregions that mule deer callhome. Each ecoregion is briefly summarized including a physicaldescription, a description of the deer, the climate, limiting factors that reduce the productivity of deer,and recommendations to improvemule deer populations.

All ecoregions are subject to thelimiting factors such as urbanization,fire suppression and droughtdescribed in this publication. The limiting factors listed for eachecoregion in this article are some ofthe most important, but certainly notthe only factors, limiting mule deerpopulations.

Although each region is ecologi-cally different, some common factors exist:

- Generally, habitats conditions thatare less productive for mule deer.

- Human caused factor such as frag-mentation of habitat, changes in fireregimes, livestock management andchanges in plant communities have limited deer populations.

- Return to higher mule deer numbers will require stronger land use planning and restoration efforts on a large scale.

- Climate and weather play an important role in habitat quality in each region.

Coastal Rain ForestEcoregion

Description: Along the westcoast of North America fromnorthern California through southeast Alaska. Known for itsdense rain forests of western hemlock, Sitka spruce and naturaland commercial forests of Douglasfir. Clearcutting is common incommercial forests, and provides

excellent habitat for mule deer for eight to 10 years after harvestwhen grass, forbs, shrubs andsaplings are common. In the northern part of this region wherewinter snowfall can be heavy, it isimportant to retain stands ofmature trees to intercept the snow.

Climate: A marine climate withcloudy days, cool temperatures,high precipitation from fall tospring, and a short, dry summerseason. Precipitation ranges from25 to 120 inches. Soils are coarseand nitrogen-poor.

The deer: Black-tailed deer arethe dominant subspecies of mule

Mixed conifer habitat of Coastal Rainforest Ecoregion, west slope of Cascade Range, Douglas County, Oregon. By Tom Keegan.


Southwest DesertsEcoregion

Description: Includes thesouthern portions of California,Arizona, New Mexico and westTexas, extending into northernMexico.

Climate: This region is arid tosemi-arid, and has extreme tem-peratures, high evaporation rates,low rainfall that varies greatly fromyear to year, periodic droughts andpoor soils. Precipitation rangesfrom 5 to 20 inches annually.

The deer: Deer are nonmigra-tory and greatly affected bydroughts. Fawn recruitment is variable depending on amount andtiming of rainfall. During dry years,fawn recruitment is typicallybelow what is needed to maintainthe population.

Limiting factors: Rainfall andcompetition with livestock. Winterrainfall affects the diversity, qualityand quantity of next years' springforbs, which directly affects thenumber of young deer that areborn and survive to adulthood.Winter precipitation stimulatesplant growth in the spring. Forbsare critical to the survival of deer

in this ecoregion because browseplants don't contain adequateamounts of nutrients.

Competition with other forb andgrass-eating species such as livestockcan have a great effect on mule deer,especially during years when rainfallis limited and range resources arescarce. Overgrazing in drought yearscan have long-lasting effects.

Recommendations:

1. Create sources of water in areaswhere water is limiting and whereother potentially limiting factors arebeing addressed.

2. Monitor grazing so that livestockdo not remove large amount ofplants, particularly in years wheredrought or other climatic conditionsstress deer.

3. Work with landowners to providehunter access to public land.

4. Monitor human sprawl.

18

Regions

California WoodlandChaparral

Description: Includes theCoast Range of southernCalifornia, and lower elevations ofthe west slope of the SierraNevada east into central Arizona.

Climate: Hot dry summers,mild wet winters, and periodicdroughts create annual grasses andforbs in communities of oak wood-land and chaparral. Precipitationranges from 8 to 30 inches a year.Chaparral was once maintained byfrequent, cool fires, but fire sup-pression created older stands ofchaparral with poor quality forage.

The deer: Mule deer popula-tions in this region do not migrate,except for those at higher eleva-tions in the Sierra Nevada and San Gorgonio Mountains. Deerdensities are greatest in the northern part of this ecoregion.Nonmigratory deer move inresponse to changes in habitat onnorth and south facing slopes.

Limiting factors: Fire. Most ofthe mule deer range in this regionis in private ownership, and firesuppression is a high priority forresidents. This region is in a fire-

adapted habitat, and frequent firesoccurred before European settle-ment. Frequent fires rejuvenate thehabitat and improve forage formule deer. Fire suppression resultsin infrequent, large, hot fires. Thelack of fire results in older, lessnutritious plants for mule deer.

Weather. Summer and early fallis a difficult time for mule deerbecause of little rainfall, and dryplants with little nutritional value.Nursing does need high qualityforage to nurse fawns and buildbody reserves for the coming winter.

Recommendations:

1. Use fire to stimulate sprouts ofshrubs over a large landscape.

2. Stimulate new growth of desired plants using light livestock grazing.

3. Minimize effects of livestockalong streams and uplands toimprove forage for mule deer onfall and winter ranges.

Live oak-chaparral woodland habitat shot taken of Bloomfield Ranch, Kern County, California. By Marc Hoshovksy.

Spring wildflowers in the Southwest Deserts ecoregion. By Arizona Game and Fish Department.


Great Plains Ecoregion Description: The largest grass-

land ecosystem in North America,extending from central Canada tothe Texas panhandle, west to theRocky Mountains. The regionincludes a transition from tallgrassto shortgrass prairie.

Climate: This region is semi-arid, annual precipitation variesbetween 10 and 33 inches, andtemperature varies greatly.

The deer: Mule deer in thisregion are nonmigratory, althoughthey shift their home range inresponse to local moisture condi-tions that affect plant quality. Muledeer forage on agricultural plant-ings in areas that are irrigated.

Limiting factor: Cover.Drought and severe winter snowscan affect mule deer populations.Fire is important in maintaininggrasslands.

Draws that contain shrubs,hardwoods and moisture providemule deer with critical habitat,especially in the winter. Grasslandand shrub/grassland communitiesinterspersed with draws providecritical year-round habitat for muledeer. Irrigated fields grow nutri-tious grasses for mule deer forage.

Human activities are a double-edged sword for mule deer. Whileagriculture provides watering holesand alternative food sources formule deer, overgrazing by live-stock is harmful to the woodydraws that provide cover andmoisture.

Recommendations:

1. Work with landowners to mini-mize the effects of severe weatherconditions by providing hardwoody cover for mule deer byimproving grazing strategies andriparian habitats.

2. Provide hunting opportunitiesconsistent with habitat conditionsand deer populations.

Colorado PlateauShrubland and ForestEcoregion

Description: High elevationareas in western Colorado, easternUtah, southern Wyoming, andnorthern Arizona and NewMexico. Habitat ranges fromspruce trees at high elevations,ponderosa pine and Douglas fir atmid-elevations, and sagebrush andpinyon-juniper at lower elevations.

Climate: Much of this region isabove 5,000 feet and includesmany mountain peaks above15,000 feet. Precipitation rangesfrom 8 to 24 inches. Winters canbe severe.

The deer: Deer are migratorybecause of the heavy winter snow-falls at high elevations. Deer popu-lations are most affected by severe

winters that cause nutritional stress,high fawn mortality and lower fawnrecruitment. Some lower elevationranges can be summer range limited.Livestock grazing may affect thequality of forage available to deer.

Limiting factors: Severe wintersand droughts can impact the produc-tivity of mule deer by causing highfawn mortality.

Improper livestock grazing hascaused changes in mule deer winterrange.

Recommendations:

1. Limit disturbance to existing win-ter range, and acquire additionalwinter range.

2. Improve quality and quantity ofwinter range habitat.

3. Maintain stands of aspen for muledeer fawns and summer range.

4. Limit development of and distur-bance to summer range in areaswhere summer range is limiting.

19

Mule deer habitat used in the Great Plains ecoregion, Scotts Bluff National Monument in western Nebraska. By Mike Cox.

Aspen stand in poor condition because there is no aspen generation and the stand is being invad-ed by conifers. Fire is needed to restore and rejuvenate this stand. By Dan Stroud.

Regions


Intermountain WestEcoregion

Description: The mountainranges west of the Rockies, east ofthe Sierra Nevada, north ofColorado and south of Canada.The Great Basin, a large semiaridbasin, makes up a big part of thisland mass. Pinyon-juniper wood-lands, conifer forests and aspenwoodlands are common at higherelevations.

Climate: Lower elevation com-munities receive less than 12 inch-es of precipitation a year. Areas tothe north and at higher elevationsreceive most of their precipitationas snow.

The deer: If you could draw abull’s-eye around the portion ofthe West that was once the centerof mule deer distribution, youwould draw it around this region.Mule deer typically migrate in thisregion (although some do not),spending summer in conifer forestsat higher elevations and winter inlower elevations. Deer densitiesare highest in places where vegeta-tion and topography are diverse.

Agriculture and urban develop-ment have hurt mule deer popula-tions in this region by destroyingshrub communities and reducingwinter range.

Limiting factors: Competitionwith livestock, agriculture, urbandevelopment and timber manage-ment. Each year, thousands ofacres of sagebrush habitat and val-leys are being overtaken by piny-on-juniper stands, much to the

detriment of mule deer.In the southern part of the

region, invasive plants such ascheatgrass and changes in firecycles are limiting mule deer pro-ductivity.

Habitat in spring and summeraffect mule deer productivity morethan severe winters because thequality of spring and summerrange affects the number of fawnssurviving to adulthood. Urbandevelopment may affect recruit-ment because it is occurring inmule deer winter range.

Recommendations:

1. Manage motorized traffic to ben-efit mule deer.

2. Manage forests for both early andlate successional stages to meetyear-round needs of mule deer.

3. Protect and plant importantbrowse species for mule deer, espe-cially in winter ranges.

4. Manage wildfires on mule deerranges to avoid cheatgrass inva-sion.

5. Manage livestock grazing to min-imize impacts to mule deer alongstreams and in aspen habitats.

6. Develop cost-effective ways toreduce pinyon-juniper invasion,and place a priority on developinga patchwork of habitats so thatmule deer have woody cover nearplaces to forage.

Northern Boreal Forest Description: The higher eleva-

tions of the Cascades and SierraNevadas in the three most westernstates, as well as northern Idaho,western Montana and Wyoming,northern Washington, and thewestern Canadian provinces.

Pine, spruce, fir, Douglas fir andlarch are the dominant foresttypes, and forests become morethin as elevation increases. Muledeer are not found very far northof the northern boreal forest insubarctic woodlands.

Climate: Winters are long andcold. Average annual precipitationvaries with elevation and topogra-phy, from 10 inches to as much as120 inches.

The deer: Because of severewinters and heavy snowfall, mostof the deer in this region aremigratory, although some are year-round residents at lower eleva-tions. The growing season is short,and the quality of food mule deerfind during this critical time ishigh. Deer follow retreating snowin search of food.

Limiting factors: Severe win-ters. Deer follow the growth ofplants throughout the growing sea-son. It is only when severe winters

and deep snow limit their ability toforage that they experience die-offsand high mortality.

If mule deer populations experience a die-off, there is excel-lent chance for recovery as a resultof spring and summer habitat conditions.

The greatest threats to deer in thisregion are development and distur-bance of winter range, and barriersto migration.

Recommendations:1. Acquire winter range habitat andminimize housing developments toprotect and enhance winter ranges.

2. Use fire to maintain shrub-dominated habitats.

3. Maintain forest shrubs, forbs,grasses and saplings to provide foraging habitat in spring, summerand fall.

4. Avoid and manage forest encroach-ment into high elevation meadows.

5. Avoid barriers to migration.

6. Manage deer populations based onthe ability of winter range to supportthem, and avoid overharvest in yearswhen early winters send migratorydeer to lower elevations.

20

Steens Mountain, Oregon in the Intermountain Ecoregion. By Tom Keegan.

Male black-tailed deer in mixed conifer forest, Douglas County, Oregon, December 1998. By Tom Keegan.


The greatest threats to sagebrushcommunities are conversion ofhabitat for agricultural purposes,development, grazing by livestockand fire suppression.

Biologists recommend sage-brush habitats be disturbed usingfire or mechanical methods to provide a mosaic of habitats, managing livestock grazing to helpvegetation recover, and managingelk and mule deer populationsbased on the ability of the habitatto support a certain number of ungulates.

And they encourage creativitywhen reclaiming sites by plantingnative species that benefit muledeer.

Forests Forests offer three benefits to

mule deer - places to hide, placesto lessen the effects of severeweather and places to eat.Quantity, quality and diversity ofplants limit the number of muledeer that can exist in a forest.

Forests naturally go through sixstages before they become oldgrowth - grass-forb, shrub, shrub-sapling, open sapling-pole, closedsapling-pole-sawtimber, large saw-timber and old growth. Mule deerrespond favorably to forests in thefirst four stages because of thequantity, quality and diversity ofplants present soon after logging.The amount of time today's com-mercial forests offer habitat qualityto mule deer is far shorter than inhistorical times because of howquickly foresters are able to regen-erate a forest using herbicides, sitepreparation and seedling plantings.

The following are some recom-mendations to improve habitat formule deer in forests:

- Maintain portions of forests inearly successional stages.

- Create markets for pulpwood tim-ber to improve mule deer habitat inforests by thinning pole timber.

- Promote the use of fires and reseed with native plants muledeer prefer.

- Limit the negative effects of roads.Reseeding roads no longer in use,limiting traffic on roads, closingroads during high stress periods,and estimating the impacts of newroads over a landscape can helpmule deer.

- Protect hardwood species such asoak to provide mast and cover formule deer, and protect riparianareas from overuse by deer andother ungulates.

- Responsible timber harvest basedon adaptive management practicescan greatly enhance mule deer populations that use forests.

AspenAspen is a component of many

forest types and covers up to 6.9million acres in the westernUnited States. It is considered themost widely distributed native treein North America. Mule deer relyon aspen communities for food,cover, hiding, fawning, fawn rearing, and protection from severe weather, making it a popular habitat type for them three seasons of the year.

Aspen are short-lived,and rarely survive morethan 100 years. Fire isimportant to set backsuccession in aspenstands to retain grassand forb communities,to set back conifers thatoutcompete aspen andto create forest openingsfor aspen. Many aspenstands have not beensubjected to fire in over50 years, creating olderaspen stands with fewgrasses and forbs. A

study done in 1981 confirmed theaverage age of aspen stands inColorado is 80 years old, and standsyounger than 50 years of age weredifficult to find.

The distribution of aspen is similarto its historical distribution, but thestands are older, fewer and mixedwith conifers.

Biologists recommend stimulatingthe growth of younger stands ofaspen using fire, harvest, mechanicaltreatments and proper livestock graz-ing to provide several age classes ofaspen stands throughout a mule deerpopulation's range. Fire will alsohelp control coniferous invasion ofaspen stands.

21

PlantCommunities in Trouble...M

aintaining plantcommunities andwildlife habitat tomeet the expecta-tions of the public

and the life requirements ofhealthy mule deer populationsrequires more than individualefforts by states and provinces.Policies that cross political bound-aries and address factors that con-tribute to mule deer habitat lossand degradation, and greateremphasis on working withlandowners to enhance habitat onprivate land may be critical to thefuture of many mule deer herds.The following are a few plant communities in trouble, and oneplant community that is thriving to the detriment of healthy muledeer habitats.

Shrub-Steppe Of all the habitats in the West,

the shrub-steppe community hasprobably fared the worst. Shrub-steppe is the largest natural grass-land in North America. It oncecovered more than 200,000 squaremiles, and extends from southeast-ern Washington and easternOregon, through Idaho, Nevada,and Utah, and into westernWyoming and Colorado. Shrubrefers to the most common type ofplant that grows in this habitat,while "steppe" is a Russian wordthat means a vast treeless plain.Grasses such as wheatgrass andbluegrass, and shrubs such assagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrushand greasewood are commontypes of plants found in shrub-steppe communities. The shrub-steppe region is hometo more than 200 kinds of birds,and 30 mammal species, including the mule deer. Mule deer eat sagebrush, particularly during the winter months.

Aspen stand with healthy regeneration andunderstory vegetation in western Wyoming. By Dan Stroud.

Aspen stand in very poor condition due toovergrazing. Note: no young or suckeringaspen trees and no understory vegetation. This stand will eventually become too old toreplace itself. By Dan Stroud.

Removal of juniper and reestablishment of sage-steppe habitaton slope in southern Oregon. By George Buckner.


Piny

on-ju

nipe

r

22

... and One Troubling

Plant Community

Pinyon-juniperPinyon-juniper plant communi-

ties have expanded to over 74 mil-lion acres of the IntermountainWest. Pinyon-juniper plant com-munities began expanding whenlivestock were introduced in thelate 1800s, fire was reduced acrossthe landscape and climaticchanges occurred.

When pinyon-juniper initiallyencroaches into shrub steppe com-munities, habitat for mule deerimproves with additional diversityof plants and cover. The improve-ment is short-lived. Because it isdrought tolerant, pinyon-juniperwoodlands eventually outcompeteforbs, grasses and shrubs, especial-ly in places where woodlands areadjacent to grasslands. Biologistshave documented a loss of 80 per-cent of mountain big sagebrushwhen juniper covers 50 percent ofthe canopy of an area. Otherplants and plant communities suchas antelope bitterbrush, mountainmahogany and aspen are also lostwhen pinyon-juniper invades anarea.

To manage pinyon-juniperwoodlands for mule deer habitat,biologists recommend harvestingfuel wood and using fire in grass-lands next to pinyon-juniperwoodlands to reduce furtherencroachment and improve quan-tity and diversity of grasses, forbsand shrubs.

Juniper invasion into mule deer habitat. Note background with large junipers and understorydevoid of shrubs important for mule deer forage. Note sagebrush with shrubs in foreground.By George Buckner.


You can walk into anycenter for human disease control in theUnited States and getas much information

as you want on both common anduncommon diseases in people.Wildlife biologists wish the samecould be said for wildlife diseases.

While humans have places suchas the National Center forInfectious Diseases and the Center for Disease Control andPrevention, biologists aren't as fortunate. Organizations such asThe American Association ofWildlife Veterinarians, the NationalWildlife Health Center andWildlife Diseases Association existto help monitor wildlife diseases.But the weak link in the chain isgetting reliable, consistent, qualitydata to these organizations.

Biologists usually have to relyon large-scale die-offs or individ-ual case studies to track and moni-tor wildlife diseases. The behaviorof wildlife, low numbers of ani-mals observed, lack of training and cost to monitor individualswithin a population make studying wildlife diseases evenmore difficult.

Biologists face other hurdles.Large numbers of observations arerequired to detect and monitor dis-eases in wildlife populations. Andmany of the biologists capturingthe wildlife are not trained to col-lect and handle scientific samplesfor analysis in a laboratory. Lack ofadequate staff and lack of trainingmake it difficult to monitor wildlife diseases.

Cost is another critical factorthat prevents biologists from track-ing wildlife diseases. Monitoringanimals requires capturing, taggingand following those individuals.For longer-lived animals or animalswith larger home ranges, thesecosts are prohibitive for many fishand wildlife organizations.

Difficulties aside, what do weknow about disease in mule deer?First, while there are several dis-eases that affect individual muledeer, only two are known to wreakenough havoc to cause significantdie-offs.

The diseases are viral and theycause blood loss. As a result, theyare called hemorrhagic (hem-or-a-gic) diseases - bluetongue (BTV)and epizootic hemorrhagic disease(EHD). Diagnosis of these diseasesis difficult because it's tough to tellone disease from the other.

Two other diseases, chronicwasting disease and tuberculosis,are considered emerging diseases.

Hemorrhagic (Bleeding)Diseases

Bleeding diseases were firstidentified in white-tailed deer pop-ulations, where death rates as highas 50 percent were documented.Mule deer fare better with thesediseases, usually suffering no morethan a 20 percent mortality rate.The diseases are common only inlate summer and fall until the firstfreeze kills the transmitters of thevirus, biting midges. Those deerthat die usually do so within fiveto 10 days after being bitten by aninfected midge.

When mule deer contract eitherof the two hemorrhagic diseases,they can show one or more signsof sickness. These include bleedingfrom the eyes, ears, mouth and/ornostrils, moderate fever, depres-sion, anorexia, excessive drooling,swelling and ulcers in the cheek ortongue (thus the name bluetongue), swelling of one or moreof the linings in the stomachs andblood in the feces and saliva.

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)

Chronic Wasting Disease(CWD) is so named because itcauses chronic weight loss thateventually results in death. It wasfirst documented in captive deer ina wildlife research center inColorado in 1967.

Since then, it has been diag-nosed in captive and free-rangingdeer and elk in northeasternColorado, southeastern Wyoming,Nebraska, South Dakota,

Wisconsin and New Mexico andin game-farmed cervids inColorado, Montana, Nebraska,Oklahoma, South Dakota andAlberta and Saskatchewan,Canada.

Loss of fear of humans, weak-ness, inability to stand, dehydra-tion, listlessness, repetitive walkingin set patterns, dull coat, excessivedrooling, drooping head and ears,inability to control muscle move-ments and emaciation are signs ofCWD.

CWD is a transmissible spongi-form encephalopathy (TSE), whichrefers to the fact that in late stagesof this disease, the brain becomesfull of holes like a sponge. The dis-ease usually takes years to devel-op, but it can develop in a rela-tively short period of time.

Scrapie is the oldest of the TSEdiseases, and occurs in sheep andgoats. It was first reported in themid-18th century, but has neverbeen reported in other animals orpeople. Affected animals lose con-trol of their leg and body musclesthat causes them to stagger.Eventually they cannot stand. Thename "scrapie" refers to the factthat the animals can become irrita-ble and develop an intense itchthat leads the animal to scrape offtheir wool and break the skin.

Dr. Elizabeth Williams is a pro-fessor of Veterinary Science at theUniversity of Wyoming and anexpert in the field of wildlife dis-

eases. She said chronic wasting dis-ease is high on the list of prioritywildlife diseases to monitor.

"Because of the concern aboutsimilar diseases such as scrapie insheep, CWD is among those dis-eases the United States Departmentof Agriculture is interested in eradi-cating. It will be important in thefuture," said Williams.

Scientists have not determinedwhat causes chronic wasting disease,but the most accepted theory is thatcell proteins called prions (pro-nounced preeons), change andbecome disease-causing agents.Many believe the disease is transmit-ted from animal to animal, likescrapie.

"CWD and the other diseases aresimilar, but not identical," saidWilliams. "A lot of the features inscrapie are similar to deer. Clinically,deer don't scratch and itch, butmany of the other symptoms arealike."

Increased monitoring by wildlifeagencies, increased media attention,stronger public interest in the diseaseas a result of mad cow disease, andincreased numbers of people movinginto areas that were once wildlifestrongholds likely have resulted inhigher detection rates.

TuberculosisAnother disease of importance to

wildlife managers and veterinariansis tuberculosis. Tuberculosis iscaused by bacteria, and is spread bydirect and indirect contact betweenanimals. Tuberculosis usually affectsthe lungs, causing difficulty breath-ing, coughing, and discharge fromthe mouth or nose.

The United States Animal HealthAssociation (USAHA) is a science-based national forum interested inthe eradication of tuberculosis fromwild and domestic animals in theUnited States. It appointed a workinggroup in October of 2000 to developstrategies to address tuberculosisissues.

The first diagnosis of tuberculosisin white-tailed deer occurred in theState of Michigan in 1974. Feedercattle, dairy cattle and captivecervids, along with wild white-taileddeer and many carnivorous specieshave been infected.

Williams said tuberculosis has notbeen found in any deer populationsin the West, but that it is a disease ofconcern because of its ability tospread rapidly.

"Right now, we don't have anyevidence of TB in free ranging popu-lations in the West, but we know it'stransmitted readily when deer are

23

Mule DeerDiseases

A mule deer displaying the symptoms ofchronic wasting disease. The deer is inpoor body condition, appears to be sedated,and is not avoiding human structures oractivities. This animal was photographed innortheastern Colorado in the CWD endemicarea. By Colorado Division of Wildlife.


concentrated," said Williams. Shesaid it is a disease that needs to beclosely monitored because of itspotential impact to wildlife andhumans.

Jim deVos, Chief of Researchwith Arizona Game and FishDepartment, places a strongemphasis on the importance ofincreased wildlife research tomonitor wildlife diseases.

"I believe it is important

that entities with manage-

ment authority for mule

deer make a more serious

commitment to disease

research," said deVos.

"Only when large-scale

die-offs occur do diseases

become an important issue

for wildlife management

agencies. By then, it is

often too late to do

anything other than

document the number

of mortalities."

DeVos recommends a moreaggressive, coordinated approachto wildlife disease research. Thisincludes increased communicationbetween the western states, coordination of veterinarians inwestern states working on wildliferesearch projects, creation of aconsistent funding base to study mule deer health issues,development of standard samplingprotocols so that all mule deercaptured for any wildlife researchpurposes are sampled consistentlyand using quality standards, andparticipation in surveillance programs for diseases with high biological or social concerns formule deer or human health.

If western states and Canadianprovinces take this approach towildlife disease research, theremay someday be a place peoplecan go to learn everything theyever wanted to know aboutwildlife diseases.

You can travel allover the world, andany McDonald'srestaurant product,whether it's a ham-

burger or a French fry, will tastethe same. McDonald's perfectedstandardization. Unfortunately, thesame cannot be said for the meth-ods to collect information aboutmule deer.

The first estimate of mule deerpopulations in the West was probably exaggerated,but that's understandablegiven the survey methodsavailable at the turn ofthe 20th century.Biologists weren't flyingaround in fixed wing air-craft and helicopterscounting wildlife, andthe ability of one state tocommunicate about andcollaborate on researchwas primitive at best.

While technology hashelped biologists andmanagers, not every stateor province and its fund-ing sources are createdequal, making it very dif-ficult for states to surveyusing the same methods.For example, well funded statesmay have the staff and financialresources to survey their mule deerpopulations using helicopters andline transects several times duringthe year. Other states may have theresources to sample on horsebackin places with easy access.

Information about mule deer iscollected a variety of waysbecause of differences in terrain,weather (snow cover), the timingof breeding and fawning, and roaddensity (roadless areas are moredifficult to survey on foot).

Why count mule deer? A greatdeal of time and effort can go intodetermining the ratio of bucks todoes and fawn to does, and esti-mating total population and fawnrecruitment. This information isused to develop harvest strategiesthat biologists hope will result in ahealthy population of mule deerthat the habitat can support.

One of the first steps in manag-ing mule deer populationsthroughout the West is figuring outwhat everyone uses to base theirmanagement, policy and harvestdecisions. Members of the WesternAssociation of Fish and WildlifeAgencies (WAFWA) Mule DeerWorking Group set to work touncover this information.

They asked western states andCanadian provinces to answerquestions about data collection,

methodology, modeling and rangecondition. The results are eyeopening.

To survey mule deer, westernstates and Canadian provinces areusing everything from fixed-wingaircraft and helicopters, to horses,trucks and good old-fashionedfeet. Some are using specific aerialtechniques such as quadrats ordouble counts, while other statesaren't using planes or helicoptersat all. Some are using a samplingdesign based on ease of access,while others are more rigid in theirsampling protocol. Some are sam-pling units once per year, whileothers are surveying twice a yearor once every three years. Thegood news is that western statesand provinces know what andhow much work needs to be doneto improve survey information onmule deer.

How is the data used after it iscollected? Most states analyze theirdata using computer models to esti-mate population and determine thenumber of mule deer that should beharvested each year, and anychanges in hunting regulations thatmay be necessary as a result of pop-ulation estimates. Harvest data fromthe previous year, in combinationwith population estimates, are themost common factors states andprovinces use to determine annual

harvest levels.The working

group developeda series of recom-mendations toencourage statesand provinces towork together tocollect and ana-lyze data aboutmule deer popu-lations.

- Strive to obtainmore standardizedpopulation meas-ures.

- Each state andprovince should

develop a priori-tized list of mule deer populationsand measures to estimate those pop-ulations. They recommend estimat-ing fawn survival as the key parame-ter.

- Personnel who collect data should betrained and experienced.

- WAFWA should develop a set ofguidelines and protocols to obtainand analyze mule deer harvest data.

- Host a workshop for staff that usescomputer models to encourage stan-dardization.

Surveying wildlife populationslike mule deer is difficult and complex, certainly not as easy ascreating a recipe for fast food andreplicating it. But if biologists areever going to understand mule deeron a regional basis, surveying andmonitoring their populations willneed to be more consistent and standardized.

24

Counting the Herds

Mule deer running during a helicopter survey are classified and counted.By Jim Heffelfinger.


- Manage for a wide diversity ofplants, especially forbs andbrowse, across a broad landscapeso that mule deer can meet theiryear-round nutritional needs.

- Avoid supplemental feeding as areplacement for lost or poor habitat.

- Practice adaptive resource man-agement. Changes in mule deercondition and productivity shouldbe monitored and evaluated whenhabitat changes.

Anyone that has everbeen a boy or girlscout has likely hadthe opportunity tobuild a bird feeder.

Over 110 million Americans feedbirds today, a pastime that makes itone of the most popular hobbiesthat knows no gender, age, or cul-tural boundaries. People enjoyfeeding birds because it gives theman opportunity to view wildlife,and it makes them feel like they'rehelping wildlife survive, particular-ly in the winter.

People commonly make themistake in thinking that feedingother kinds of wildlife, particularlyspecies like mule deer, is equallyhelpful. When people see muledeer starving along the sides ofroads in the midst of a severe win-ter, compassion makes them wantto help the mule deer by feedingthem hay. Like most things in life,this sounds like a simple solution.But it's not that easy, and in fact,supplemental feeding may domore harm than good to most deerpopulations.

The key to understanding howsupplemental feeding affects muledeer is to study their stomach, or as in the case of mule deer,stomachs.

Mule deer are ruminants with a four-part stomach. Each of the stomach chambers plays a criticalrole in the ability to process food.

The first stomach is called therumen, a large storage chamber thatreduces bigger pieces of food tosmaller pieces through microbialaction, much the same way that acompost pile 's microbes begin tobreak down leaves. Microbes aredecomposers that break down matterinto nutrients and minerals thatplants and animals reuse.

While resting, mule deer regurgi-tate or "spit up" food from therumen, and rechew their food. This is also known as "chewing theircud." Mule deer chew their cud tomake the food they eat smaller, sothat it can pass on to the next stomach, the reticulum.

The reticulum does two things.First, it acts as a filter,sending largerparticles backto the firststomach foradditionalbreakdown.And second,it breaks down thecell walls of plants, then passes thesmaller food particles to the thirdstomach, the omasum.

25

HowDietAffectsDeerT

here are two waysfood can influencemule deer popula-tions. The first isdensity dependent,

or dependent upon the size of themule deer population in relation tohabitat. If a mule deer populationbecomes larger than the ability ofthe habitat to support it, it eatsitself out of house and home, and the body condition and productivity of the animalsdecline. This happened on theKaibab Plateau in Arizona, theclassic textbook case of what canhappen to mule deer populationsif they become overpopulated.

The second way food can affecta mule deer population is densityindependent, meaning that num-bers of mule deer are not the primary cause of declines in bodycondition or productivity.Examples of this include poorrange conditions or when an areareceives a large amount of rainfallthat causes nutrients to leach fromthe range. Animals are able toingest large quantities of plants,but the quality of those plants ispoor and does not provide the animals with adequate nutrients.

If mule deer numbers aredeclining in one region of theWest, taking a look at range conditions can provide solid cluesto the cause. Knowing what muledeer eat, and the times of yearthey feed on certain foods, isequally important.

The main part of a mule deer'sdiet is shrubs and forbs, and about10 percent is grasses. Because of

this varied diet, mule deer forageacross several different types oflandscapes, increasing the size oftheir home range as forage qualitydecreases.

Biologists know that

maintaining healthy body

condition is critical to

mule deer survival and

reproduction. Body

condition determines

ability to survive severe

winters, birth size and

survival of fawns, and

even sex of fawns. More

female fawns are born

to does in good body

condition.

In addition to overall body condition, some nutrients such asphosphorus, calcium and seleniumaffect overall productivity.Inadequate amounts of calciumcan inhibit antler growth or causelower weight gains in fawns.

Although measuring body con-dition is time and labor intensive,the payoff is substantial. If biolo-gists can accurately measure bodycondition of mule deer, they canbetter evaluate range conditionsand predict whether mule deerpopulations will increase, decreaseor remain stable. The bottom lineis that reproduction rates for muledeer in high quality habitats isgreater than those in poor habitats.

Body measurements andamount of fat and muscle givebiologists clues to the condition oflive animals. These measurementscan be taken by analyzing theamount of fat in organs, proteins inblood, chemical makeup of urine,and measuring the amount of muscle and estimating cell mass.All give clues to an animal's body condition.

What can be done to enhancebody condition of mule deer andimprove mule deer populationnumbers?

- Improve range habitat for foragingmule deer by setting back succes-sion. This can be done using fire,grazing, equipment or chemicals.Early successional stages providethe best forage habitat for mule deer.

Supplementalfeeding- Just Say No


The omasum also acts as a filter,sending particles that are too largeback to the rumen. The third stom-ach absorbs water and compactsthe smaller food particles for thefourth stomach, the abomasum.

The fourth stomach is a truestomach that functions much like ahuman stomach, where food isdigested with acids, and the nutri-ents are absorbed through theintestines.

This well designed digestivemachine even has a bypass foryoung mule deer that are not yetfeeding on plants. Mule deer fawnsbypass the first three stomachs andsend the milk from their motherdirectly to their fourth stomach

because there is no need for thefirst three stomachs to break downplant cell walls or make largepieces of food smaller.

Sounds pretty efficient? In somerespects it is. Because of the num-ber of stomachs, mule deer can geta large amount of protein andnutrients from the foods they eat.But this comes at a cost, andunderstanding the costs highlightsthe complexity of supplementalfeeding.

The microbes that break downthe food in a mule deer's stomachare very specific to the types offood the mule deer eats. Somemicrobes are good at breakingdown woody plants, while othersdo a great job breaking downforbs.

During times of the year whenmule deer are feeding on woodyplants, their woody plant microbesare abundant in their digestivetract. When mule deer are feedingon forbs and grasses, other kindsof microbes roll up their sleevesand take the lead in digestion aswoody plant microbes becomeless abundant.

Len Carpenter, SouthwesternField Representative with theWildlife Management Institute,emphasized the importance offeeding mule deer the right type offood.

"With that smaller rumen, youhave to provide them the rightfiber mixture such that the animals

can eat it without doing harm tothe rumen," said Carpenter. "If youjust feed them grains and hay, par-ticularly low quality grass hay,there's a real problem."

A mule deer's digestive tract isso sensitive that natural climaticchanges such as drought or exces-sive precipitation that can quicklychange the quality and diversity oftheir foods can also result in mal-nourishment or starvation.

Does this mean that all supple-mental feeding of mule deer isbad? Not necessarily, but be pre-pared to pay a hefty price for suc-cess. Supplemental feeding helpsmule deer make it through asevere winter if the feeding is start-ed early, long before the mule deershow signs of malnutrition or star-vation. To effectively feed muledeer requires a three to four month

commitment because it has to bestarted before poor range condi-tions and severe weather causemalnourishment. It must be contin-ued until range conditions cansupport the herd.

These kinds of programs arecostly, and can cause both shortand long-term behavioral changesin wildlife. But the biggest threat tofeeding mule deer is disease.

Mule deer and other big gameanimals that are fed by humanstend to concentrate at feedingsites, where disease outbreaks canaffect a large number of animals.Mule deer are susceptible tochronic wasting disease and easilyspread tuberculosis in crowded

conditions (see article onWildlifeDiseases for adescription ofthese diseases).

"The biggestproblem rightnow with feed-ing are the disease con-cerns," saidCarpenter."That hasbecome a bigproblem withtuberculosisand ChronicWastingDisease.Michigan feeds and baitswhite-taileddeer and has atuberculosisproblem thataffects theirlivestock. If

you feed mule deer with elk, thebrucellosis problems with elk andlivestock are a real concern."

But Carpenter said there aresome situations that are so severefor mule deer that consideration ofsupplemental feeding is warranted.

"There are some winter situa-tions that are so bad, that if youdon't feed, so many mule deer willdie that a population won't be left,especially in high mountain areas,"said Carpenter. "In very limitedand extreme situations, it's okay tofeed deer."

Disease isn't the only troublingside effect of supplemental feed-ing. Some mule deer are migratory,relying on traditional movementsthroughout a landscape to get thefood, cover and water require-ments they need year-round.Supplemental feeding can disrupt

these movement patterns and causemule deer that were once migratoryto become year-round residents.

Year-round mule deer residentscause interactions human residents.Mule deer sometimes find alternativesources of food such as vegetableand flower gardens, and ornamentalshrubs, much to the chagrin ofhomeowners. This problem cansometimes worsen during the spring,summer and fall. Numbers of vehi-cle/mule deer collisions can increasein areas where mule deer are fed.

Supplemental feeding can cause apopulation of mule deer to increasebeyond the capacity of the range tosupport it. This causes overbrowsingof existing shrubs and forbs that haslong-term effects on the range. Manyareas, particularly those in andaround deserts, take decades andoften centuries to recover from overbrowsing.

If mule deer numbers remain artificially high during times whenrange conditions are poor, twothings happen. First, the range takeslonger to recover because over-browsing continues. And second, thenumber of malnourished deer actu-ally increases because artificial feed-ing causes more animals to surviveand reproduce. More mule deermeans more competition for existingresources. The only option for theseanimals is to feed in an overbrowsedrange when they are not being supplementally fed.

The bottom line? Leave supple-mental feeding to the birds, and planfor healthy mule deer populations byproviding adequate year-round habitat for mule deer.

26

When mule deer feed across

a large landscape, the

microbes in their bodies

adjust as their food sources

gradually change. If a mule

deer suddenly switches its

diet from woody plants to

high quality alfalfa hay, the

microbes in its body do not

have time to adjust, and it

starves to death with a full

stomach. Many a hay-fed

mule deer has suffered

this fate.

In severe winters and deep snow, it may be necessary to feed mule deer to prevent extreme losses. It is important that theration fed is nutritionally balanced and that a feeding plan is in place. By Len Carpenter.


Managing Mule Deer with Uncertainty

The similaritiesbetween managingfish, forests andwildlife and playingthe stock market are

uncanny. When playing the stockmarket, you establish clear objec-tives for how you want yourmoney to work for you over thelong-term, then you tweak andmake adjustments as changes inthe market occur and new infor-mation becomes available. Whenyou're managing species with fins,feathers, fur or leaves, the sameconditions exist, including theinherent risks and uncertainties.

Biologists began to get a handleon describing the uncertainties ofmanaging natural resources in themid 1980s. Until that time, naturalresource managers used a very tra-ditional approach to managingfish, forests and wildlife that wasoften reactive and passive. The tra-ditional approach was based onprecise predictions, singleanswers, and the belief that man-agement policies could be effec-tive if they were long-term and sta-ble. It was an approach destinedfor conflict and failure. It was a lotlike dumping a large sum ofmoney into one stock market fund,then walking away from it, despitechanges in the economy, age toretirement and new informationabout stocks.

Biologists recognized the tradi-tional approach was failing themin four basic ways.

- They were not setting clear long-term management objectives;

- They were not monitoring theresults of regulations, harvest andpolicies;

- They were not adjusting manage-ment activities based on theresults of their actions and pro-grams;

- And there was more conflict withthe public who didn’t have muchopportunity to understand whatagency managers did and why.

These shortcomings created asystem of managing wildlife thatcould be likened to a dog chasingits tail, where seasons and harvest"chase" habitat conditions andpopulation levels. One of thebiggest casualties of this approachto management was an unin-formed public that expectedwildlife populations to respondexactly to the predictions of biolo-gists, a no-win situation for bothparties.

Recognition of these shortcom-ings led to the birth of a new wayof managing called adaptiveresource management. Also calledadaptive harvest managementbecause harvest is often used tohelp regulate mule deernumbers, adaptiveresource managementintroduces the uncer-tainty of managing natu-ral resources - andattempts to minimizethat uncertainty withconsistent monitoringand evaluation of pro-grams. In other words, ituses the "feedback" frompast decisions andactions to make adjust-ments and future deci-sions.

The goal of thisapproach is to adaptmanagement practicesto fit the changing val-ues of society, and thehabitat conditions that affect ourfish, forest and wildlife popula-tions. It's a method of learning bydoing that allows biologists to bet-ter understand how, for example, awatershed and the naturalresources that live in that water-shed respond to alternative poli-cies and management practices.Using this approach can betterdefine how a mule deer popula-tion responds to a specific landmanagement practice and harvestprogram.

Adaptive resource managementis a way managers can better meetgoals, learn from and respond tomanagement actions, and share

that information so that others canbenefit. There are four to six stepsto adaptive resource management:

1. Gather existing informationabout a population and its habitat,define a management objective,forecast outcomes of several man-agement actions, and identifyareas where knowledge and infor-mation is needed.

2. Design a management plan andmonitoring program that will meetthe desired management objec-tives, yield information where it isneeded, and provide feedbackabout management actions.

3. Implement the plan.

4. Monitor the results of the plan.

5. Compare actual outcomes toforecasts and interpret results.

6. Make adjustments to forecastingmodels and management objec-tives to reflect new informationand understanding. Repeat theprocess with adjustments.

The first observations aboutadaptive resource management arethat it isn't easy to do, it can bevery costly for individual states,and it may be very difficult tocoordinate throughout the West.

Len Carpenter is the WildlifeManagement Institute field repre-sentative for eight states in theWest and Southwest. He believesadaptive resource managementwould work well for mule deer,but recognizes there are inherentproblems with implementing itacross a large landscape withnumerous political boundaries.Unlike waterfowl management, inwhich the United States Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) has key

responsibility for management ofmigratory birds across all states,mule deer are state-regulated.

"The USFWS is one entity, andacross all states they can dictatewhat can go on," said Carpenter.When it comes to mule deer man-agement, "All states like to do theirown thing. To impose the will of onesystem on all states collectively isdifficult. Each state has its ownagency and commission - thosegroups are all different, and they seethings through different coloredglasses. Adaptive resource manage-ment is going to have to be donestate by state, recognizing that prob-lems with mule deer are commonacross all states."

He cites the need for a multi-stateapproach to coordinate mule deercensus, herd composition, fawn sur-vival and harvests, and standardizeddata analysis. Goals for harvest man-agement activities could includebuck:doe ratios, fawn:doe ratios, orpopulation densities. States coulduse these goals to develop models toevaluate the response of mule deer

27

Learning by Doing

Helicopters are the vehicle of choice by biologists gathering data on mule deer populations. By Len Carpenter.

populations to different harvest andregulation strategies.

"Adaptive resource managementper se is very complex and rigorous,"said Carpenter. "It requires the estab-lishment of objectives, the develop-ment of models, and monitoring andtesting of models. Many states don'thave the facilities or resources need-ed, and often can't follow all of thesteps necessary to truly implementadaptive resource management."

Carpenter emphasized what adap-tive resource management is not -"We'll try something, and if it does-n't work, we'll do something else."It's going to take time for westernstates and provinces to fully imple-ment adaptive resource manage-ment.


One of the first states out of thechute to apply adaptive resourcemanagement to manage mule deeris Montana. And they're taking thepublic along with them for the ridevia their Internet site,www.fwp.state.mt.us/hunting/ahm/content.asp.

Anything and everything youever wanted to know about adap-tive resource management andhow Montana is using it to man-age their mule deer can be foundon this site. One portion of the siteis titled, "Mule Deer Hunters - AreYou in the Know?" The site askshunters questions, then provides ahyperlink with the answer.

The interested public can learnabout surveying mule deer, usingcomputer modeling to estimatepopulation numbers, and manag-ing herds using different harveststrategies. And through the use ofquestions and answers, Montanaclearly explains that the drivingforce behind whether or not amule deer herd is holding its own,shrinking or growing is the numberof fawns that survive to adults.

When asked about the manage-ment goal of Montana's mule deer,Montana doesn't throw out a num-ber. Instead, they describe thelong-term health of mule deerpopulations and optimal huntingopportunities.

The Big Sky state also does agreat job of explaining that adap-tive resource management is awork in progress. "With more con-sistent data collection on muledeer populations around the stateand this computer modeling capa-bility, biologists will increasinglybe able to compare what is actual-ly observed each year with whatthe computer modeling predictedthe year before. Over time repeti-tion of this modeling/in-the-fieldmonitoring feedback loop willimprove wildlife management per-formance by reducing the amountof uncertainty."

Glenn Erickson, WildlifeManagement Bureau Chief forMontana, said public reaction onadaptive harvest managementstrategies for mule deer has beenguarded.

"Everyone has accepted theprocess and the objectives as gen-eral consensus," said Erickson. " Alot of what people are doing iswaiting. We haven't had a lot of

complaints about the process orthe directions we're going. Thepublic has supported our approachto adaptive resource managementprocess to this point. Things aregood now as deer numbers arestarting to increase."

Erickson commented that keep-ing people updated is critical."Sometimes, what tends to happenis we put out an informationalpiece, and as we're halfwaythrough implementation, someother crisis happens. By the timeyou get to a point where you haveto have everyone supporting you,they or you have forgotten to keeppeople informed. To prevent thatfrom happening, we developed aninformational plan along with thisprocess to keep everything in frontof everybody."

Adaptive resource managementcan only be successful if state

agencies take a proactive approachto keep interested constituentsinvolved and informed.

Today, adaptive resource manage-ment is being used throughout theworld to manage intercontinentalwaterfowl populations, quail, pronghorns, and mule deer, to name a few. Biologists are evenusing the concepts of adaptiveresource management to conductprescribed burns.

Will adaptive resource manage-ment ever be fine-tuned such thatresponses by wildlife to managementactivities will always be predictable?Not likely.

J.E. Mitchell and D.R. Freeman, intheir 1993 technical report onwildlife-livestock-fire interactions onthe Kaibab Plateau, said it best.

If western states and Canadianprovinces can overcome the politicaland economic barriers to imple-menting adaptive resource manage-ment, both mule deer, and thepublics that reap the benefits fromhealthy mule deer populations, willprofit - even in the face of uncertainty.

28

"No matter how much data

are collected and analyzed,

some level of uncertainty

will always exist. A land

manager must make deci-

sions with the information

available and continue to

learn from both mistakes

and accomplishments."

Southern Utah desert landscape near Boulder, Utah. Henry Mountain is in the background. By Steve Cranney.

Mule deer habitat along the Utah-Nevada border. By Steve Cranney.

Three to four month old mule deer fawns atMalheur National Wildlife Refuge, Septemberof 1992. By Tom Keegan.


Hunting is thewildlife biologist’smost often used toolto effect changes inthe size and com-

position of mule deer populations.Establishing hunting seasons andharvests are within the control offish and wildlife managers, andthis activity generates much need-ed revenue for conservation pro-grams.

The recipe for success to createeffective hunts is to be very specif-ic about the desired results.Harvest and population structureare monitored closely so that hunt-ing seasons can be adjusted toproperly manage mule deer herds.All of this must be done with thesupport of internal and externalconstituents. If any piece of thisrecipe is missing, it is very likelyhunting will be ineffective in man-aging mule deer.

Some of the most useful harveststrategies include buck-only sea-sons, antlerless harvests, changesin season timing and length andlimited licenses.

Buck-only seasonsBuck-only seasons generally

have little effect on mule deer pop-ulations because the remainingbucks breed all reproductivelyactive does. Wide buck:doe ratiosand an abundance of youngermales may delay the timing ofbreeding, but there is no evidencethis significantly affects the repro-ductive rates of does or the num-ber of fawns that survive to adult-hood in a mule deer population.

Some people have expressedconcern that heavy, buck-only har-vest degrades the gene pool of apopulation, but there is no evi-dence to support loss of geneticdiversity as a result of youngermales breeding does. Buck-only

seasons can effect changes in agestructure, sex ratios, and timing ofbreeding, but these do not signifi-cantly affect the population as awhole. Under normal conditions,fawns are born at a time whenhabitat conditions are optimal.There is concern that if breeding issignificantly delayed, fawns maybe born late, and have a more dif-ficult time surviving during winter.

Antlerless harvestsDoe harvests can be effective

tools for managing population lev-els. Antlerless harvests can preventlarge-scale die-offs or overbrows-ing of habitat. The population hasto be monitored closely, and themanager has to have reasonableestimates of population size, andadult and fawn survival. Each ofthese factors will allow biologiststo use adaptive resource manage-

ment techniques to manage mule deer populations and their habitats.

Biologists know that:

- Harvesting does can be used todecrease a mule deer populationdepending on whether or not theremoval of the does is additive orcompensatory mortality. If thedesire is to reduce the population,enough does must be harvested toreach the level where mortality isadditive.

- By understanding how doe harvestaffects a population of deer, man-agers can better meet populationobjectives within a habitat.

Studies have shown that mostenvironmental factors that reducesurvival of fawns have little effecton adult does, which have a lownatural mortality.

Season length and timingManaging season length and

timing are two methods managershave used to attempt to alter theage and sex structure of mule deerpopulations, especially whenhunters become vocal about toomany hunters, too few bucks ortoo few large bucks.

Restricting season lengthreduces hunter days in the field,but doesn't necessarily reduce

buck harvest or improve buck:doeratios.

Hunting seasons used to occurover relatively short periods of time.Today, many states and provincesoffer a range of hunting seasons overa longer period of time and with avariety of harvest methods such asmuzzleloader, archery and centerfirerifle. The purpose of expanded sea-sons is to offer additional types ofhunter opportunity and reducehunter densities to improve huntquality and lessen landowner/hunterconflicts.

Antler point restrictionsCreating mule deer harvest sea-

sons with antler point restrictions ispopular amongst hunters who thinkit will help increase the number ofmature bucks and buck:doe ratios inmule deer populations. But researchin many western states shows thatantler point restrictions do not pro-duce more deer or larger-antlereddeer.

Colorado implemented antlerpoint restrictions statewide for sixyears, and in a number of gameunits for seven years. The result wasa shift of hunting from pressure onall age classes of bucks (primarilyyearlings) to bucks two years andolder, and an increase in illegal oraccidental harvest of yearling bucks.The number of mature bucks did notincrease over time.

29

A successful mule deer hunt. By Dave Neill.

Managing DeerHerds withHarvest


Idaho and Montana implement-ed two points or less seasons toreduce hunting pressure on olderbucks and improve buck:doe ratiosat the end of hunting seasons.Over the long term, two point sea-sons did not improve buck:doeratios at the end of the huntingseasons.

Wyoming’s experience with fourpoint or better seasons resulted infewer hunters and a reduction intotal harvest, fewer mature bucks,and a significant number of deerharvested with fewer than fourpoints.

Utah abandoned efforts toimplement antler point restrictionsafter five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

Washington tried antler pointrestrictions in a few of their hunt-ing units and experienced a small-er harvest of mule deer bucks, aswitch in harvest from mule deerto white-tailed deer, and noincrease in the number of maturebucks. They did experience anincrease in buck:doe ratiosbecause of the lower buck harvestand improved recruitment offawns.

Oregon abandoned antler pointrestrictions in a few popular hunt-ing areas when the number ofolder bucks and buck:doe ratiosdecreased after 12 years.

Most western states have con-cluded that changes in buck:doeratios and increases in the numberof mature bucks can only beaccomplished through reductionsin harvest of bucks.

Limiting licensesLimiting hunting licenses is anoth-

er way to manage harvest and meetpopulation objectives. In some areas,mule deer populations have notbeen able to keep pace with humanpopulations, and demand for harvestexceeds availability. In these areas,biologists have little choice but tolimit the number of hunting licenses.

In other areas, several years ofsevere weather forced states likeColorado to limit mule deer licenses.The state saw a correspondingincrease in mule deer numbers asweather conditions improved andfewer mule deer were harvested.

By limiting licenses, fish andwildlife agencies offer fewer biggame hunting opportunities, but canmore effectively improve the numberof large bucks, post-season buck:doeratios and buck age structure.

30

As you worked your way through this publication, you may have realized that manag-ing mule deer and public expectations is complex. The hey days of the 1950s, whenfire and other natural forces enhanced habitat for mule deer and favored them overother species, are gone.

Given the permanent loss of winter and summer mule deer range that has occurred, itis not likely that we could ever return to mule deer population numbers that existed inmiddle of the last century. It is, however, possible to improve habitat managementpractices, reintroduce fires, reduce the spread of invasive species and focus on otherfactors that have contributed to the loss and decline of mule deer numbers. But it is also important to recognize that despite these and otherwell-intentioned efforts, many other factors such as climate are outside of human control.

Efforts to increase mule deer populations will require tremendous coordination that crosses political boundaries. These efforts may force each ofus to make choices about expanding the communities where we live, or allowing exploration for minerals and gas in undisturbed wilderness.

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is facing the challenge with a cooperative, realistic approach in the hopes that stable,healthy mule deer populations can once again grace the western landscape for present and future generations.

WAFWA Mule Deer Working Group

Attempts to increase the

number of mature bucks

and buck:doe ratios using

four-point seasons in

Montana reduced buck har-

vest by 28 percent,

increased illegal harvest of

bucks with 3x3 points or

less by about 40 percent,

and increased harvest of

bucks having more than

3x4 points.

Our Summary


“Delivering Conservation through information exchangeand working partnerships”

“Delivering Conservation through information exchangeand working partnerships”

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies – Member OrganizationsAlaska Department of Fish and Game

Alberta Department of Sustainable Resource DevelopmentArizona Game and Fish Department

British Columbia Ministry of Environment California Department of Fish and Game

Colorado Division of WildlifeHawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

Idaho Department of Fish and Game Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

Nevada Department of Wildlife New Mexico Department of Game and FishNorth Dakota Game and Fish Department

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife ConservationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Saskatchewan Department of Environment and Resource ManagementSouth Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department

Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentUtah Division of Wildlife Resources

Washington Department of Fish and WildlifeWyoming Game and Fish Department

Yukon Department of Environment


Date post:	27-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

S MULE DEER - Utah Division of Wildlife Resources · information on mule deer management and...

Documents