The Mule Deer

Presented by: Chelsey Faller

Introduction

• The Mule Deer is also called the Black-tailed Deer

Classification / Taxonomy• Odocoileus hemionus

• Class: Mammalia–Order: Artiodactyla• Family: Cervidae–Genus: Odocoileus

Populations / Sub-populations I

• Two groups of sub-populations: the black-tailed deer and the mule deer

• Many sub-population identifications are being challenged due to lack of genetic differences.

Populations / Sub-populations II

• Mule Deer sub-populations– Rocky mountain Odocoileus hemionus hemionus– California Odocoileus hemionus californicus– Desert Odocoileus hemionus eremicus– Southern Odocoileus hemionus fuliginatus– Peninsula Odocoileus hemionus peninsulae– Cedros Island Odocoileus hemionus cerrosensis– Tiburon Island Odocoileus hemionus sheldoni

Populations / Sub-populations III

• Black-tailed Deer sub-populations– Columbian Odocoileus hemionus columbianus– Sitka Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis

Identification I

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends the following guide to determine if an animal is a black-tailed deer, a mule deer, or a white-tailed deer.

Identification II• Antlers

Identification III

• Those ears

Identification IV

• Top of the tail is dark brown to black

Distribution

• 18 States

• Introduced to Hawaii

• South to the end of the Mexican Plateau

• Black-tails along the Pacific coast from northern CA to AK, mule deer elsewhere.

Distribution II

General Population Trends

• Experienced a decline from European arrival through 1900

• Population expansion in 1910-1950– Predators eradicated

• 1960s-70s population declined range-wide– Over populated

• Many populations increased in 1980s-90s, now declining again

Conservation Status & Legal Status

• Mule deer are in no danger given their vast range and adaptability

• The Cedros Island Mule Deer is listed as endangered, though its taxonomic status may soon change

Economic Value• Hunting – In 2001 there were 4 million hunters in 4 of the

western states– Spent $7 billion

• Average of $1,581• Wildlife tourism– 2001 22.5 million people in 18 states reported $14

billion in wildlife viewing expenditures (not just mule deer)

• Mule deer are prey for other mega fauna that people pay to see

Habitat

• “the resources and conditions present in an area that produce occupancy, including survival and reproduction, by a given organism” – Hall et al 1997

Natural History I

• Largest mule deer found in the Rockies, smallest are black-tails along the Pacific coast.

• Males larger than females– Females growth stops at 3

– 8 yrs of age– Sexually mature as yearlings

Natural History II - Reproduction

• Breeding season is September through March

• In any location actual breeding season is less than a month.

• Can be polygamous or polygynous

Natural History III - Reproduction

• 183 – 218 day gestation• In any given location most fawns will be born

during a 1 month period• 1-3 offspring, 99% of pregnancies will have 1-2

Behavior I

• Family groups – females with offspring– Bucks forced out as yearlings

• Herd size determined by cover and forage

• Small all-male herds• Winter herds 100+• Oldest/largest animals

are dominant

Behavior II

• Usually crepuscular• Can be migratory• In one population not all

will migrate• Dispersal distance varies

greatly depending upon region and patchiness of habitat– 7 to 150 miles

Behavior III

• Home range depends upon habitat. • Rough terrain = smaller home range• Males have larger home • In some populations deer are highly

dependent upon home range will die rather than travel to a new one

Columbian Black-tailed Deer Home Range Fidelity

• Dasmann and Taber 1956• Herds were a doe and young from previous

2 years• Non-migratory

Columbian Black-tailed Deer Home Range Fidelity

• Adult home ranges 700 -1400 yards

Columbian Black-tailed Deer Home Range Fidelity

• Regrowth after fire provided excellent forage

• Deer stayed home and died of malnutrition rather than journey 1000-2000 yards– Didn’t know better forage was available, possibly

unable to realize they were malnourished?

Diet I

• Small rumens and gut lengths compared to other ruminants– Need higher-quality food

• Grazers/browsers– Usually grasses and

forbs but also shrubs and some trees

– Flowers, fruits, seeds, buds, and leaves

Diet II• Very opportunistic

• In growing season forbs and grasses are primary foods

• In dormant season mostly feeding on browse

• Highly location dependent

Diet III Vancouver Island Mule Deer

Annual Diet• 67% browse 92% of available species• 15% lichens • 11% forbs 64% of available species• 5% fungi• 2% gramminoids 56% of available species

Cowen 1945

Diet IVRocky Mountain Mule Deer

• Rocky Mountain mule deer (Yukon to Texas)• Across range they will eat– 202 species of trees and shrubs– 484 species of forbs– 84 species of gramminoids (sedges, grasses, etc.)

Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p

Predators I

• Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Wolves, Bobcats, Bears, Humans.

• Eagles will take young

John Rogers

Predators II

• Mule deer can sprint at 58km/hr over short distances

• Best at avoiding predators in rocky, rugged terrain– Special gait (bouncing and leaping) – 6-7m

• Excellent sense of smell

Predators III – Value to Mule Deer of Being Prey

• Colorado– Mule deer one of primary prey species for cougar– Cougars selectively targeted mule deer infected

with CWD– Cougars more likely to kill

an infected animal then hunters

Malnutrition

• Malnutrition significant cause of death• In desert/chaparral areas heat and aridity can

cause die-offs • Snow coverage can be a major killer• Weather dependent

Disease & Parasites

• Hoof-and-mouth disease, anthrax, tularemia, rabbit fever, brucellosis, tuberculosis – All can be transmitted to livestock

• Bluetongue virus and epizootic hemorrhagic disease in the west

• CWD in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska• Ticks

Competitors I

• Share range, often food species and shelter• Elk • Livestock• White –tailed deer

Competitors II

• White-tailed deer– Slow vegetation changes favor white-tailed deer– Expansion may not be a novel occurrence– Habitat preferences overlap in many locations,

but not everywhere

Competitors III

• Elk– Mule deer have a disease advantage (brain worm)– When using same food as mule deer elk have an

advantage – Mule deer need more digestible plants– Development may favor elk

Interactions with Humans

• Oil, gas and mineral exploration• Urban growth• Highways, railroads and fences• Altered vegetation communities– Not always bad

• Invasive plants• Wildlife feeding– malnutrition

Tucson Citizen - 2007

Population Dynamics I

• Population density changes with the seasons. – In the mountains in winter, can reach 130/km2

– Lower density in prairies and deserts

• Oldest wild male 8, oldest wild female 14• Populations will undergo large swings – cause

depends upon region– Often depends on local vegetation succession

patterns

Population Dynamics II Sitka Black-tails

• Sitka black-tailed deer population swings

• Causes for declines– Harsh winter– Illegal harvests– Large logged areas re-grow and the canopy closes

• In some areas current expected decline of 60% by 2054

• Causes for increases– Logging with small cuts– Several years of low snowfallAlaska Department of Fish and Game

Management of Populations I

• Condition of habitat impacts populations– Include thermal cover in winter,

security cover, shade, and food• Habitat loss due to development• Idaho – large mule deer declines– Third fastest growing human population– Growth hotspots are areas mule deer need in

winter

Management of Populations II

• Many populations declining– Usually due to habitat quality/quantity declining

• Wildfire pattern severely diverging from historic patterns

• Humans– Hunters seek higher density populations + large bucks– Non-hunters seek less hunting as population declines

• Hoping less hunting will mean more deer for viewing

– Need to address the underlying problem(s) - bring back habitat, lower expectations

Management of Populations – Predators and Competitors I

• White-tailed deer populations growing• Predator populations growing• Washington State– White-tails moving into mule deer

ranges– Cougar population increasing – Cougar will select mule deer – Increased predation on mule deer driving down

population

Management of Populations Predators and Competitors II• Washington State– Hunting cougars decreases # of mule deer predated– Increases white-tailed deer population > 30%/yr– Mule deer / white-tailed deer competition increases– Final result still unknown, mule deer losing for now

• Unintended results! Hunting cougars causes and increase in human-cougar conflict – Teenagers are trouble, hunting shifted population

towards young itinerant males

Management of Populations – Predators and Competitors III

• Back to Washington State– Area with no white-tailed deer + no cougar hunting,

otherwise very similar to other sites• Mule deer not in decline

• Conclusion– Mule deer + white-tails = more cougars – Cougars prefer mule deer– Hunt cougars = more cougar - human conflict– Hunt cougars until extirpated = white-tailed deer

population explosion– What then? Mule deer out competed

Management of Habitats - Logging

• Create patches of good cover and of good feeding areas– Patchy habitat usually means greater densities– Often better if burned post-logging

• Logging – results in early successional habitat– Caution in the far north – need cover in winter

• Logging slash – can be bad or good if left behind

Management of Habitats - Fire

• Patchy fire is usually a good thing– Results in early successional habitats– Patches = lots of edge habitat with

forage and cover

• Large-scale intense fires can be extremely detrimental – Remove cover – kill too many trees– Result in large-scale population

swings

Management of Habitats – Fire II

• Fire can help invasive species get established• Season of fire matters• Fire has different impacts in different regions– In the southwest fire can remove spine from cacti,

making them attractive food• Some species dependent upon fire to sprout

seeds– Forage increases for several years following a fire• But not if it’s so hot that it burns through the soil

Management: Damage Control

• Mule deer help to spread invasive plants– Eat seeds and carry them around when migrating

• California chaparral areas – hottentot fig

• Get into crops/gardens/tree nurseries– The more valuable an ornamental the tastier it is!– Because they jump 2m+ fences are needed– Electric fence – add peanut butter to make them lick– Time harvest to avoid deer – Dogs to frighten deer off– Slanted fence – can’t jump that!

Future Outlook

• Mule deer populations will likely continue to decline

• White-tailed deer and elk will continue to expand

• Extinction unlikely some local populations are fine and they have a huge range

Future Management

• Limit development, avoid areas wintering sites

• Hunt more white-tailed deer and elk

• Keep up a regime of small, mild, patchy fires– Avoid large intense blazes

Current Events

• BLM – re-vegetating mule deer range in California after fire August 2012 (315,000 acres). – Volunteers planted 3,000 seedlings

• Roan Plateau – Colorado– Oil and gas development on BLM land– Fragmenting/destroying habitat– Conservation and hunting groups sued to stop drilling

until a further impact review could be done

Current Events / Discussion• Utah trying to “recover” mule deer populations • Highest population occurred during the 1950s (500,000)

– Mule deer numbers then began immediate decline for several decades

• Utah Division of Wildlife Resources says that the population is only 50% of what they want (currently at 320,000)– Also say that mule deer are overgrazing some of the available habitat.– Paying to move mule deer around the state by air – Bounties for coyote program – want to kill 10,000– Supposed to help mule deer– Research says coyotes don’t matter, it’s the weather– Doing it anyway – hunters happily say they want coyote extermination

to protect the big adult deer - when coyotes only kill fawns. – As a bonus, killing coyotes may cause coyote population increase in

the short-term

Current Events / Discussion• Predation by coyotes is not a limiting factor in nearby locations – 6yr

study on Utah/Idaho border (Hurley et al 2011)– Population growth rate did not increase with coyote or cougar removal– Coyote population mirrored lagomorphs, not mule deer

• Prey on mule deer more when lagomorphs population falling, still not a significant impact

• Strong indications of climate/weather being the most important factor• Disease also not a factor

• Mule deer over grazing parts of Utah range, population slowly increasing or in decline elsewhere – could they be at/approaching K?

• If predator control will not have impact, then why do it?• What other methods might increase the mule deer population?• Should mule deer population increase to 1950s levels even be a goal at

all?

Sources• The National Park Service at http://www.nps.gov/romo/naturescience/mule_deer.htm• US Fish and Wildlife Service at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A04K• Mammals of Texas online edition at http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/odochemi.htm• Mule Deer Foundation at http://www.muledeer.org/hunting• Mule Deer Working Group at http://www.muledeerworkinggroup.com/index.htm• Hanley, Thomas P. 1984. Relationships between Sitka black-tailed deer and their habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-168.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21 p• Hurley et all. 2011. Demographic response of mule deer to experimental reduction of coyotes and mountain lions in

southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs. 178:1-33.• Krumm, C. E., M.M. Conner, N.T. Hobbs, D.O. Hunter, and M.W. Millar . 2009. Mountain lion prey selectively on prion-

infected mule deer. Biology Letters. 6: 209-211• Leckenby, Donavin A. 1978. Western juniper management for mule deer. In: Martin, Robert E.; Dealy, J. Edward; Caraher,

David L., eds. Proceedings of the western juniper ecology and management workshop; 1977 January; Bend, OR. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-74. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 137-161

• Fox, Kevin B.; Krausman, Paul R. 1994. Fawning habitat of desert mule deer. The Southwestern Naturalist. 39(3): 269-275. • Robinette, W. Leslie; Julander, Odell; Gashwiler, Jay S.; Smith, Justin G. 1952. Winter mortality of mule deer in Utah in

relation to range condition. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 16(3): 289-299.• Marshal, Jason P.; Krausman, Paul R.; Bleich, Vernon C. 2008. Body condition of mule deer in the Sonoran Desert is related

to rainfall. The Southwestern Naturalist. 53(3): 311-318• Forest Service:

– Innes, Robin J. 2013. Odocoileus hemionus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2013, August 27]. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/odhe/all.html#Taxonomy

Sources II• Dasman, R. F., and R. D. Taber. 1956. Behavior of Columbian black-tailed deer with reference to population

ecology. Journal of Mammalogy 37:143-164.• Texas Parks and Wildlife at http://

www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/southtx_plain/habitat_management/gun.phtml• Cowan, Ian McTaggart. 1945. The ecological relationships of the food of the Columbian black-tailed deer,

Odocoileus hemionus columbianus (Richardson), in the coast forest region of southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Ecological Monographs. 15(2): 110-139.

• Kufeld, Roland C.; Wallmo, O. C.; Feddema, Charles. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. Res. Pap. RM-111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 31 p

• D'Antonio, Carla M. D.; Odion, Dennis C.; Tyler, Claudia M. 1993. Invasion of maritime chaparral by the introduced succulent Carpobrotus edulis. Oecologia. 95(1): 14-21.

• Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife • Martin, S. Clark. 1983. Responses of semidesert grasses and shrubs to fall burning. Journal of Range Management.

36(5): 604-610.• British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks• US Fish and Wildlife Service, Willapa National Wildlife Refuge at

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/willapa/wildlife_and_habitat/deer.html• Hamlin, Kenneth L.; Mackie, Richard J. 1989. Mule deer in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana: A study of

population dynamics in a fluctuating environment. Final Report. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 401 p.

• Wildlife Management in West Texas at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/trans_pecos/big_game/wtd/

Sources III (Pictures)• VerCauteren, K. 2003. The Deer Boom: Discussions on the Populations Growth and Range Expansion of the White-tailed Deer. USDA National Wildlife Research Center

Publication available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=icwdm_usdanwrc&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dwhite-tailed%2520deer%2520expanding%2520mule%2520deer%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D9%26cad%3Drja%26ved%3D0CFIQFjAI%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1276%2526context%253Dicwdm_usdanwrc%26ei%3D32onUtvaGInO9ASy8oHIBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNE5o--VoZUX4K37CRokqHJ4jylD-w%26bvm%3Dbv.51495398%2Cd.eWU#search=%22white-tailed%20deer%20expanding%20mule%20deer%22

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game at http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=deer.main• Utah Division of Wildlife Resources at http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/predators-mule-deer.html• San Francisco Bay Area national Parks at http://www.sfnps.org/black-tailed_deer/images• Stephen Austin State University at http://www2.sfasu.edu/orsp/research.html• Colorado Department of Natural Resources at http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Mammals/Pages/LionCountry1.aspx• Sierra Club at http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/education/ecomap/coasts-mountains/1colbtdear• The Columbian at http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/oct/07/blacktail-deer-hunting-washington/• Big Country Audubon Society at http://www.bigcountryaudubon.org/2006/08/25/bobcats-behaving-badly/• New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/56069.html• Clarke College at http://web.clark.edu/sclark/mammals%20of%20the%20Pacific%20Northwest.htm• John Rogers at http://www.monstermuleys.com/photos/PhotosID2/1507.html• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/deer.html• Ultimate Ungulates at http://www.ultimateungulate.com/index.html• USDA at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmug/home/?cid=stelprdb5399878• State of Utah: Division of Wildlife Resources at http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/search/Display.asp?FlNm=odochemi• Saguaro-Juniper Corp at http://www.saguaro-juniper.com/index.html• The American Cowboy Chronicle at http://www.americancowboychronicles.com/2012/05/california-deer-population-decline.html• St George News at http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2012/02/21/viewing-and-photographing-utahs-mule-deer-in-winter/• Montana Adventures at http://montanaadventures.wordpress.com/• Sonoran Connection at http://sonoranconnection.blogspot.com/2012/11/sabino-canyon-wildlife.html• Natural Resources at Washington State University at http://www.natural-resources.wsu.edu/slideshow/ecology%20slides/slides/mule%20deer%20bucks.html• Filed and Stream at http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2013/07/hero-day-2013-reviving-fire-scorched-mule-deer-habitat-california• Aspen Public Radio at http://aspenpublicradio.org/post/lessons-learned-colorado-s-roan-plateau• Wildlife Society news at http://news.wildlife.org/twp/2012-winter/working-group-takes-on-mule-deer/• KLS.com at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23659150