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

R

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 1

1

Founded in 1922,WAFWA currentlyhas 21 memberorganizations:

- Alaska Department of Fish and Game

- Alberta Department of SustainableResource Development, Fish andWildlife Division

- Arizona Game and Fish Department

- British Columbia Ministry of Water,Land & Air Protection, BiodiversityBranch and Fish and WildlifeRecreation and Allocation Branch

- California Department of Fish and Game

- Colorado Division of Wildlife

- Hawaii Department of Land andNatural Resources

- Idaho Fish and Game Department

- Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks

- Nebraska Game and ParksCommission

- Nevada Department of Conservationand Natural Resources

- New Mexico Game and FishDepartment

- North Dakota Game and FishDepartment

- Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

- Saskatchewan Department ofEnvironment and ResourceManagement

- South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department

- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

- Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

- Wyoming Game and Fish Department

- Yukon Department of Environment,Fish and Wildlife Branch

WAFWA Mule DeerWorking Group

- Warren Ballard - Texas TechUniversity

- Lou Bender - Washington Departmentof Fish and Wildlife

- Len Carpenter - Wildlife ManagementInstitute

- Mike Cox - Nevada Department ofConservation and Natural Resources

- Steve Cranney - Utah Division of Wildlife

- Jim deVos - Arizona Game and FishDepartment (Chair)

- John Ellenberger - Colorado Divisionof Wildlife

- Glenn Erickson - MontanaDepartment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

- Bill Glasgow - Alberta Department ofSustainable Resource Development

- Barry Hale - New Mexico Game andFish Department

- Ian Hatter - British ColumbiaMinistry of Water, Land & AirProtection, Biodiversity Branch

- Jim Heffelfinger - Arizona Game andFish Department

- Tom Keegan - Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife

- Matt Kirchoff - Alaska Department of Fish and Game

- Daryl Lutz - Wyoming Game and Fish Department

- Bruce Morrison - Nebraska Game andParks Commission

- Jerry Nelson - Washington Departmentof Fish and Game

- Jim Unsworth - Idaho Fish and Game Department

- Brian Wakeling - Arizona Game and Fish Department

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 in the West – The View in 2002.”

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.

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.

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 RudyAlvarez in southeastern Arizona. Confirmed to be a hybridusing genetic analysis at the US Fish and WildlifeService Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon. By Jim Heffelfinger.

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

Mule Deer White-tailed Deer

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 3

4

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

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.

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.

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.

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 5

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

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

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

“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

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 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

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

"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."

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

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 9

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

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

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.

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

The Mounting Pressure of Development

2

Oil- Gas - Mineral Exploration and Mining

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 11

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

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

"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.

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.

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 13

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

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

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.

Elk & Mule Deer

Interactions

6

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.

severe 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.”

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 15

1615

ECOREGIONSCoastal Rain Forest

California Woodland Chaparral

Intermountain West Southwest Deserts

Northern Boreal Forest

Colorado Plateau

Great Plains

Mule Deer-for web pdf 7/18/02 2:25 PM Page 17

17

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 f