Index of Species Information
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus
Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Snyder, S. A. 1991. 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/ [].
ABBREVIATION :
ODHE
COMMON NAMES :
mule deer
California mule deer
Cedros mule deer
Columbian black-tailed deer
desert mule deer
southern mule deer
Rocky Mountain mule deer
Inyo mule deer
peninsula mule deer
Sitka black-tailed deer
TAXONOMY :
There are 8 (or 9) recognized subspecies of mule deer in North America. Black-tailed
deer, which consist of two mule deer subspecies, comprise a distinct
race, differentiated by appearance and behavior. The subspecies are
[35,52]:
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. californicus - California mule deer
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. cerrosensis - Cedros Island mule deer
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. columbianus - Columbian black-tailed deer
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. crooki - desert mule deer
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. fuliginatus - southern mule deer
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. hemionus - Rocky Mountain mule deer
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. inyoensis - Inyo mule deer; taxonomy in question
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. peninsulae - peninsula mule deer
Odocoileus hemionus subsp. sitkensis - Sitka black-tailed deer
For the purpose of this write-up, life history, basic requirements, and
management for mule deer subspecies will be combined unless some aspect
of a subspecies differs. Subspecies are referred to by the common names
used above.
ORDER :
Artiodactyla
CLASS :
Mammal
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
No special status
OTHER STATUS :
The Cedros Island mule-deer, O. h. subsp. cerrocensis, is endangered [46].
WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Mule deer inhabit western North America from northern British Columbia
and Alberta south through central Mexico. Black-tailed deer occur from
southern, coastal Alaska south along the coast through northern
California. Ranges for each subspecies are listed below
[9,18,35,52,54]:
California mule deer (O. h. subsp. californicus) - southern Coast Ranges;
Transverse Ranges; central and southern Sierra Nevada
Cedros Island mule deer (O. h. subsp. cerrosensis) - Cedros Island, Baja California.
In threat of extinction.
Columbian black-tailed deer (O. h. subsp. columbianus) - coastal southern British
Columbia, including Vancouver Island, south through western Washington,
Oregon, and California to Santa Barbara County; Cascade Range and northern
Sierra Nevada
desert mule deer (O. h. subsp. crooki) - southern Arizona and New Mexico and southwestern
Texas to northern Mexico; possibly the Texas Panhandle
southern mule deer (O. h. subsp. fuliginatus) - extreme southern California through
Baja California Norte
Rocky Mountain mule deer (O. h. subsp. hemionus) - inland Yukon, British Columbia,
and Alberta south through the Great Plains, Columbia Basin, and
Great Basin to southern Nevada, central Arizona and New Mexico, and
western Kansas
Inyo mule deer (O. h. subsp. inyoensis) - possibly the eastern slope of the southern
Sierra Nevada, California; taxonomy in question
peninsula mule deer (O. h. subsp. peninsulae) - Baja California Sur
Sitka black-tailed deer (O. h. subsp. sitkensis) - Alexander Archipelago, Alaska
to west-central coastal British Columbia and the southern fringe
of Yukon Territory; areas in Alaska include Prince William Sound
and its islands; Kodiak, Afognak, Prince of Wales, and Queen Charlotte
Islands, and the Yakutat area
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES41 Wet grasslands
FRES42 Annual grasslands
FRES44 Alpine
STATES :
| AK |
AZ |
AR |
CA |
CO |
ID |
IA |
KS |
MN |
MO |
MT |
| NE |
NV |
NM |
ND |
OK |
OR |
SD |
TX |
UT |
WA |
WY |
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K001 Spruce - cedar - hemlock forest
K002 Cedar - hemlock - Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir - Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir - hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K006 Redwood forest
K007 Red fir forest
K008 Lodgepole pine - subalpine forest
K009 Pine - cypress forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar - hemlock - pine forest
K014 Grand fir - Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce - fir forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine - Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce - fir - Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce - fir forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper - pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K025 Alder - ash forest
K026 Oregon oakwoods
K027 Mesquite bosque
K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K031 Oak - juniper woodland
K032 Transition between K031 and K037
K033 Chaparral
K034 Montane chaparral
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K036 Mosaic of K030 and K035
K037 Mountain-mahogany - oak scrub
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush - greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush - bursage
K043 Paloverde - cactus shrub
K044 Creosotebush - tarbush
K045 Ceniza shrub
K047 Fescue - oatgrass
K048 California steppe
K049 Tule marshes
K050 Fescue - wheatgrass
K051 Wheatgrass - bluegrass
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K053 Grama - galleta steppe
K054 Grama - tobosa prairie
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass - needlegrass shrubsteppe
K057 Galleta - threeawn shrubsteppe
K058 Grama - tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K060 Mesquite savanna
K061 Mesquite - acacia savanna
K062 Mesquite - live oak savanna
K063 Foothills prairie
K064 Grama - needlegrass - wheatgrass
K065 Grama - buffalograss
K066 Wheatgrass - needlegrass
K067 Wheatgrass - bluestem - needlegrass
K068 Wheatgrass - grama - buffalograss
K069 Bluestem - grama prairie
K070 Sandsage - bluestem prairie
K071 Shinnery
K076 Blackland prairie
K085 Mesquite - buffalo grass
K086 Juniper - oak savanna
K087 Mesquite - oak savanna
K088 Fayette prairie
K098 Northern floodplain forest
SAF COVER TYPES :
16 Aspen
18 Paper birch
42 Bur oak
66 Ashe juniper - redberry (Pinchot) juniper
67 Mohrs ("shin") oak
68 Mesquite
201 White spruce
202 White spruce - paper birch
203 Balsam poplar
204 Black spruce
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir
207 Red fir
208 Whitebark pine
209 Bristlecone pine
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
219 Limber pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood - willow
223 Sitka spruce
224 Western hemlock
225 Western hemlock - Sitka spruce
226 Coastal true fir - hemlock
227 Western redcedar - western hemlock
228 Western redcedar
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir - western hemlock
231 Port-Orford-cedar
232 Redwood
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir - tanoak - Pacific madrone
235 Cottonwood - willow
236 Bur oak
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon - juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
242 Mesquite
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine - Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
246 California black oak
247 Jeffrey pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak - Digger pine
251 White spruce - aspen
252 Paper birch
253 Black spruce - white spruce
254 Black spruce - paper birch
255 California coast live oak
256 California mixed subalpine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
NO-ENTRY
PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Mule deer and black-tailed deer together inhabit virtually every major
vegetative type in western North America except those in the tropics,
arctic, and extreme deserts [35,54]. Generally black-tailed deer
inhabit the temperate, coniferous forests along the northern Pacific
Coast, from northern California to Alaska. They inhabit spruce (Picea
spp.)-fir (Abies spp.)-hemlock (Tsuga spp.) forests as well as pine
(Pinus spp.)-Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and lodgepole pine
(Pinus contorta)-subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) forests. Some
black-tailed deer also occur in the chaparral communities south of the
central Coast Ranges of California. Mule deer inhabit grass-dominated
plains and prairies, shrublands, woodlands, and mountain forests from
south coastal Alaska south through Canada and the United States, and
into Mexico. They are found in the semideserts of the Southwest and
Great Basin region, as well as the high mountains of the Northwest
[35,52,54].
BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus
TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS :
Mating Season - usually begins in November and continues through
December in the north; may begin in December and
continue through January in warmer climates; can
begin in September for black-tailed deer
Gestation - about 6 or 7 months
Birthing Season - usually begins in June and can continue into August;
may begin in April for black-tailed
deer; mature females commonly have twins, while
yearlings have only single fawns
Age of Maturity - about 1 1/2 years for females; young males
may not mate due to competition with older males
Lifespan - females as long as 22 years; males as long as 16 years;
8 to 10 years is considered old for both
Antlers - males only; begin shedding in December and continues into
March; mature and less healthy males may shed earlier [35]
PREFERRED HABITAT :
Mule deer are most likely to be found in open forested regions or on the
plains and prairies. They prefer rocky or broken terrain at elevations
near or at the subalpine zone in the mountainous regions of the West
[8]. They are also found in alpine, montane, and foothill zones. Mule
deer seek shelter at lower elevations when snows become deep. In the
mountains of the Southwest, mule deer are found in lower elevation
shrublands, while white-tailed deer occupy the higher elevation montane
areas. In open prairie regions mule deer tend to concentrate in river
breaks and brushy streambottoms [35]. In the high ranges of the Rocky
Mountains, mule deer migrate during winter, sometimes moving 50 to 100
miles (80-160 km) [35,54].
COVER REQUIREMENTS :
Mule deer are better adapted to open areas than white-tailed deer,
although cover becomes important in winter. Areas where cover can
prevent snow from accumulating beyond 12 inches (30 cm) are most
beneficial [18,39]. Wallmo and Schoen [53] reported that mule deer can
cope with snow up to 24 inches (60 cm) if not dense or crusty. In
Alaska during winter black-tailed deer use old-growth forests at low
elevations, where forage becomes abundant after the stand exceeds 300
years in age and canopy cover is 60 to 80 percent [18]. During
snow-free periods, black-tailed deer move to less dense stands and
subalpine meadows [42]. In the Cariboo Region of British Columbia
winter range is defined as those areas with 10 to 45 percent slope,
having a south and/or west aspect, and below 4,950 feet (1,500 m) in
shallow to moderate snowpack zones, or below 3,300 feet (1,000 m) in
deep snowpack zones [1]. Lackenby and others [33] and Black and others
[5] listed optimal cover attributes for the Great Basin shrubsteppe
region, including estimates of tree heights and canopy closure for
thermal, hiding, fawning, and foraging cover. They estimated the
proportion of cover to forage at 55 percent forage, 20 percent hiding
cover, 10 percent thermal cover, 10 percent fawn-rearing cover, and 5
percent fawn habitat.
FOOD HABITS :
Mule deer are primarily browsers, feeding on several thousand different
plant species across their range. They are capable of altering or
severely damaging plant communities through overbrowsing [40]. Mule
deer consume leaves, stems, and shoots of woody plants most often during
summer and fall, while grasses and forbs compose the bulk of spring
diets. However, feeding behavior is quite variable in any given
location. Some of the most common foods are: rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus spp.), mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), snowberry
(Symphoricarpos spp.), buffaloberry (Shepherdia spp.), ceanothus
(Ceanothus spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.),
sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), sumac (Rhus spp.), common chokecherry
(Prunus virginiana), willow (Salix spp.), Gambel oak (Quercus
gambellii), mockorange (Philadelphus lewisii), ninebark (Physocarpus
spp.), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), mariposa (Calochortus
elegans), juniper (Juniperus spp.), yucca (Yucca spp.), euphorbia
(Euphorbia spp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), lechuguilla (Agave
lechuguilla), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), red huckleberry
(Vaccinium parvifolium), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), milkvetch
(Astragalus spp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Grasses
include bluegrasses (Poa spp.), wheatgrasses (Agropyron spp.), and
bromes (Bromus spp.) [17,18,19,21,25,30,35,36,42,48,49,56].
PREDATORS :
Mule deer predators include humans, domestic dogs (Canis familiaris),
coyotes (Canis latrans), wolves (Canis lupus), black bears (Ursus
americanus), grizzly bears (U. arctos), mountain lions (Felis concolor),
lynx (F. lynx), bobcats (F. rufus), and golden eagles (Aquila
chrysaetos) [35].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
The effects of logging on mule deer populations vary between and within
regions; therefore it is difficult to generalize conclusions [34].
Site-specific studies are required to determine logging effects,
although many studies confirm that slash depth is a major factor
limiting mule deer use of harvested areas [1,18,27,34,53]. Studies in
Alaska have shown that black-tailed deer avoid second-growth forests
after 20 to 30 years, and instead turn to "over-mature" forests (older
than 300 years) because these forests provide more browse than younger
stands [18,27,53]. Happe and others [19] have shown that forage in
coastal old-growth forests has higher crude protein values than forage
in clearcuts. Tannin astringency of browse, which reduces digestive
protein, is higher in clearcuts than in old-growth forests. Hanley [18]
recommended scattering clearcuts in old-growth in irregular shapes and
spreading them over a wide elevational range.
A study in Colorado showed that mule deer increased after 10 years
following a treatment of alternating clearcuts with uncut strips in
lodgepole pine-spruce-fir forests. Strips 100 feet (30 m) wide produced
the best results [51]. Wallmo and Schoen [53] listed management
guidelines for timber harvesting that benefit deer in the western United
States. However, they stated that some of these guidelines are based on
speculation and all contradict claims that large clearcuts are better
for mule deer.
Mule deer are vulnerable to a variety of viral, fungal, and bacterial
diseases [20]. They inflict heavy crop damage and damage to hayfields,
stackyards, and orchards, as well as reforestation projects. Mule deer
are often attacked and killed by domestic dogs, and several hundred
thousand deer are killed by vehicles each year [40]. Mule deer are not
as tolerant of human activity and not as adaptable to disturbances as
white-tailed deer [40].
FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus
DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS :
Although uncommon, mule deer can be trapped and killed by fast-moving
fires [9,21].
HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS :
The effects of fire on mule deer habitat are widely varied and well
documented in the literature. In general, fires that create mosaics of
forage and cover are beneficial. Deer seem to prefer foraging in burned
compared to unburned areas, although preference may vary seasonally
[4,12,13,23,24,25,28,58]. This preference may indicate an increase in
plant nutrients which usually occurs following fire [2,22,43]. Hobbs
and Spowart [22] warned about making conclusions regarding the benefits
of fire based on forage studies alone. Their study of fire on nutrition
in Colorado revealed increases in the quality of deer diets due to
changes in forage selection--not increases in nutrients of previously
selected forage.
Burning in grassland communities reduces litter that otherwise inhibits
new growth of grasses. Fire rejuvenates and improves these grasslands,
which are important winter range in some areas [23,58]. Burning
sagebrush communities can result in significant increases of herbaceous
plants by reducing decadent sagebrush that outcompetes more nutritious
and palatable species [44,47]. However, in areas where sagebrush is the
only cover, its complete removal can be detrimental to mule deer
populations [47].
Antelope bitterbrush is a highly preferred browse species on some mule
deer winter ranges and is sensitive to burning [17,50]. Burned
bitterbrush takes longer to recover than bitterbrush disturbed by other
means [50]. Burned bitterbrush grows slower, is less dense, and plants
are smaller than unburned specimens. Bitterbrush responds variably to
fire intensity, temperature, and season [17]. Late summer fires in
Idaho killed two-thirds of the bitterbrush, while a moderate-intensity
spring fire in Montana killed one-third. A summer fire of moderate
intensity in Oregon destroyed the entire stand of bitterbrush [17].
Shrubs and forbs in pinyon (Pinus spp.)-juniper (Juniperus spp.)
communities tend to increase the first few years following fire,
providing valuable browse [6,37]. Mule deer seem to use these areas
more after 15 years [37,45]. Stager and Klebenow [45] reported that the
beneficial effects of fire for mule deer in pinyon-juniper stands can
last as long as 115 years. However, Bunting [7] concluded that burning
of these stands becomes increasingly difficult as stands grow older
because fine fuels in the understory are reduced. He stated that
burning should take place at early successional stages and at intervals
based on the fire tolerance of desirable forage species. Everett [14]
warned that prefire conditions in pinyon-juniper stands will most likely
determine the postfire plant composition. If perennial shrubs are
present before a burn, they will come back following fire. If no shrubs
are present, perennial grasses will develop [6].
FIRE USE :
Fire can be used to stimulate browse, create openings in dense,
inaccessible plant communities, and reduce slash, as well as increase
nutrient content and palatability of forage [11,17,38]. Gruell [17]
listed several factors that influence postfire plant composition,
including the severity, size, and season of the burn, fuel type,
postfire foraging intensity, and the prefire plant community
composition. He stated that surface fires of moderate intensity
following thinning or selection cuts can improve Douglas-fir or
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests for mule deer by promoting
regeneration of crown-sprouting shrubs and preparing the seedbed for
herbs and shrubs. A mosaic of seral stages is best for mule deer [17].
In areas where chaparral adjoins oak woodlands, prescribed burns can
create access through the chaparral to the understory forage of the oak
woodlands [28]. Biswell [4] recommended burning chaparral every 30
years to create a mosaic of young stands. Late summer or early fall
burning promotes the highest seed crop for most species in these plant
communities. Wallmo and others [55] listed several recommendations for
burning chaparral communities to improve mule deer habitat.
Fire can control pinyon-juniper woodlands by maintaining them in a
subclimax state [6]. Small burns are more beneficial than large burns
to mule deer because they tend to use burned areas close to cover. The
optimum width for burns in these communities may be less than 0.25 mile
(0.4 km) [6]. To maintain forage in bunchgrass communities, burning at
4- to 6-year intervals in winter or early spring is recommended [23].
Burning can control sagebrush in areas where it has dominated grasslands
and reduced deer forage [47]. Where Gambel oak grows thick and
impenetrable, fire can open stands and provide valuable winter range for
mule deer [32]. Kufeld [31] recommended burning Gambel oak in autumn
during or immediately following leaf fall and building fire breaks 26
feet wide (8 m) around the areas to be burned. Because Gambel oak
recovers quickly following fire, particularly at low elevations where
mule deer winter, its growth must be monitored and retarded to improve
mule deer habitat [32].
References for species: Odocoileus hemionus
1. Permar, T. A.; Fisher, R. F. 1983. Nitrogen fixation and accretion by wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) in slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations. Forest Ecology and Management. 5: 39-46. [15006]
2. Asherin, Duane A. 1973. Prescribed burning effects on nutrition, production and big game use of key northern Idaho browse species. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 96 p. Dissertation. [360]
3. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. [434]
4. Biswell, Harold H. 1989. Prescribed burning in California wildlands vegetation management. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 255 p. [13700]
5. Black, Hugh; Scherzinger, Richard J.; Thomas, Jack Ward. 1976. Relationships of Rocky Mountain elk and Rocky Mountain mule deer habitat to timber management in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. In: Hieb, S. R.,, ed. Elk-logging-roads: Proceedings of the symposium; 1975 December 16-17; Moscow, ID. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho: 11-31. [14367]
6. Blackburn, W. H.; Beall, R.; Bruner, A.; [and others]. 1975. Controlled fire as a management tool in the pinyon-juniper woodland, Nevada. Annual Progress Report FY 1975. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 77 p. [453]
7. Bunting, Stephen C. 1987. Use of prescribed burning in juniper and pinyon-juniper woodlands. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 141-144. [4836]
8. Carpenter, Len H.; Wallmo, Olof C. 1981. Rocky Mountain and Intermountain habitats: habitat evaluation and management. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 399-422. [14383]
9. Cowan, Ian McTaggert. 1956. The black-tailed deer. In: Taylor, Walter P., ed. The deer of North America. Harrisburg, PA: The Telegraph Press: 521-617. [14313]
10. Crouch, Glenn L. 1981. Coniferous forest habitats: effects of deer on forest vegetation. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 449-458. [14385]
11. Dasmann, Raymond F; Dasmann, William P. 1963. Mule deer in relation to a climatic gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management. 27(2): 196-202. [14003]
12. Davis, Peter R. 1976. Response of vertebrate fauna forest fire and clearcutting in south central Wyoming. Final Report Cooperative Agreements Nos. 16-391-CA and 16-464-CA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Zoology and Physiology. 94 p. [318]
13. Davis, Peter R. 1977. Cervid response to forest fire and clearcutting in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 41(4): 785-788. [224]
14. Everett, Richard L., compiler. 1987. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13- 16; Reno, NV. General Technical Report INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 581 p. [891]
15. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
16. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others]. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
17. Gruell, George E. 1986. Post-1900 mule deer irruptions in the Intermountain West: principle cause and influences. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-206. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 37 p. [1049]
18. 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. [14397]
19. Happe, Patricia J.; Jenkins, Kurt J.; Starkey, Edward E.; Sharrow, Steven H. 1990. Nutritional quality and tannin astringency of browse in clear-cuts and old-growth forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54(4): 557-566. [13290]
20. Hibler, Charles P. 1981. Diseases. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 129-156. [14390]
21. Hines, William W. 1973. Black-tailed deer populations and Douglas-fir reforestation in the Tillamook Burn, Oregon. Game Research Report Number 3. Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration, Project W-51-R, Final Report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Game Commission. 59 p. [8431]
22. Hobbs, N. T.; Spowart, R. A. 1984. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrition of mountain sheep and mule deer during winter and spring. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(2): 551-560. [4485]
23. Johnson, Craig A. 1989. Early spring prescribed burning of big game winter range in the Snake River Canyon of westcentral Idaho. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Breuer, David W.; Zamora, Benjamin A.; [and others], compilers. Prescribed fire in the Intermountain region: Symposium proceedings; 1986 March 3-5; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 151-155. [11263]
24. Keay, Jeffrey A. 1977. Relationship of habitat use patterns and forage preferences of white-tailed and mule deer to post-fire vegetation, Upper Selway River. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 76 p. Thesis. [1316]
25. Keay, Jeffrey A.; Peek, James M. 1980. Relationships between fires and winter habitat of deer in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(2): 372-380. [125]
26. Kie, John G. 1984. Deer habitat use after prescribed burning in northern California. Res. Note PSW-369. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 3 p. [14393]
27. Kirchhoff, Matthew D. 1983. Black-tailed deer use in relation to forest clearcut edges in southeastern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(2): 497-501. [14395]
28. Klinger, Robert C.; Kutilek, Michael J.; Shellhammer, Howard S. 1989. Population responses of black-tailed deer to prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(4): 863-871. [10686]
29. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
30. 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. [1387]
31. Kufeld, Roland C. 1983. Responses of elk, mule deer, cattle, and vegetation to burning, spraying and chaining of Gambel oak rangeland. Tech. Publ. 34. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 47 p. [253]
32. Kunzler, L. M.; Harper, K. T. 1980. Recovery of Gambel oak after fire in central Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist. 40(2): 127-130. [1389]
33. Leckenby, Donavin A.; Sheehy, Dennis P.; Nellis, Carl H.; [and others]. 1982. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands--the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: mule deer. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-139. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 p. [1432]
34. Lyon, L. Jack; Jensen, Chester E. 1980. Management implications of elk and deer use of clear-cuts in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(2): 352-362. [14377]
35. Mackie, Richard J.; Hamlin, Kenneth L.; Pac, David F. 1987. Mule-deer. In: Chapman, Joseph A.; Feldhamer, George A., eds. Wild mammals of North America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 862-877. [14400]
36. Maser, Chris; Mate, Bruce R.; Franklin, Jerry F.; Dyrness, C. T. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 496 p. [10238]
37. McCulloch, Clay Y. 1969. Some effects of wildfire on deer habitat in pinyon-juniper woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(4): 778-784. [1594]
38. Nelson, Jack R. 1976. Forest fire and big game in the Pacific Northwest. In: Proceedings, annual Tall Timbers fire ecology fire ecolgy conference: Pacific Northwest; 1974 October 16-17; Portland, OR. No. 15. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 85-102. [6464]
39. Nyberg, J. Brian. 1987. Man-made forests for deer: challenge or dilemma? Forestry Chronicle. 63(3): 150-154. [14271]
40. Reed, Dale F. 1981. Conflicts with civilization. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 509-536. [14384]
41. Roppe, Jerry A.; Hein, Dale. 1978. Effects of fire on wildlife in a lodgepole pine forest. The Southwestern Naturalist. 23(2): 279-287. [261]
42. Schoen, John W.; Kirchhoff, Matthew D. 1990. Seasonal habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer on Admiralty Island, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54(3): 371-378. [11940]
43. Severson, Kieth E. 1987. Deer and elk nutrition in Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine forests. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings of the 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 23-27. [13914]
44. Smith, Michael A. 1985. Prescribed burning of big sagebrush in Wyoming. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 14th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1985 May 29-30; Rock Springs, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 41-45. [13910]
45. Stager, D. Walve; Klebenow, Donald A. 1987. Mule deer response to wildfire in Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodland. In: Everett, Richard L., compiler. Proceedings--pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 572-579. [29501]
46. Berg, William E. 1979. Wildland habitat development study. Minnesota Wildlife Research Quarterly. 39(3): 97-118. [14258]
47. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 1973. U.S.D.A. Forest Service environmental statement: burning for control of big sagebrush. Unpublished draft supplied by Steve Yurich, Regional Forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 1. [2379]
48. Urness, J.; Neff, D. J.; Watkins, R. K. 1975. Nutritive value of mule-deer forage on ponderosa pine summer range in Arizona. Res. Note RM-304. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p. [14396]
49. Urness, Philip J. 1981. Desert and chaparral habitats: food habits and nutrition. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 347-365. [14389]
50. Wagstaff, Fred J. 1980. Impact of the 1975 Wallsburg fire on antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata). The Great Basin Naturalist. 40(4): 299-302; 1980. [2437]
51. Wallmo, Olof C. 1969. Response of deer to alternate strip clearcutting lodgepole pine and spruce-fir timber in Colorado. Res. Note RM-141. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 4 p. [14398]
52. Wallmo, Olof C. 1978. Mule and black-tailed deer. In: Schmidt, John L.; Gilbert, Douglas L., eds. Big game of North America. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 31-41. [14168]
53. Wallmo, Olof C.; Schoen, John W. 1980. Response of deer to secondary forest succession in southeast Alaska. Forest Science. 26: 448-462. [14394]
54. Wallmo, Olof C. 1981. Mule and black-tailed deer distribution and habitats. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 1-26. [14391]
55. Wallmo, Olaf C.; LeCount, Albert; Brownlee, Sam L. 1981. Desert and chaparral habitats: habitat evaluation and management. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 366-386. [14388]
56. Wallmo, Olaf C.; Regelin, Wayne L. 1981. Rocky Mountain and Intermountain habitats. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 387-398. [14387]
57. Wallmo, Olof C.; Schoen, John W. 1981. Coniferous forest habitats: forest management for deer. In: Wallmo, Olof C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press: 434=448. [14386]
58. Willms, W.; Bailey, A. W.; McLean, A. 1980. Effect of burning or clipping Agropyron spicatum in the autumn on the spring foraging behaviour of mule deer and cattle. Journal of Applied Ecology. 17: 69-84. [2572]
FEIS Home