Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus | Mule Deer 



ABBREVIATION : 
ODHE

COMMON NAMES : 
   mule deer
   burro deer
   California mule deer
   Cedros deer
   Columbian black-tailed deer
   desert deer
   Inyo deer
   peninsula mule deer
   Rocky Mountain mule deer
   Sitka black-tailed deer
   southern mule deer
   Tiburon deer


TAXONOMY : 
There are 11 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 [35].  Only seven
subspecies are recognized.  There is some doubt as to the distribution,
differentiation, and possible existence of the remaining four.  These
four are indicated below with an asterisk [52]:

Odocoileus hemionus ssp. hemionus - Rocky Mountain mule deer
O. hemionus ssp. crooki -  desert mule deer
O. hemionus ssp. californicus - California mule deer
O. hemionus ssp. fuliginatus - southern mule deer
O. hemionus ssp. peninsulae - peninsula mule deer
O. hemionus ssp. columbianus - Columbian black-tailed deer
O. hemionus ssp. sitkensis - Sitka black-tailed deer
O. hemionus ssp. eremicus* - burro deer
O. hemionus ssp. sheldoni* - Tiburon Island mule deer
O. hemionus ssp. inyoensis* - Inyo mule deer
O. hemionus ssp. cedrosensis or cerrosensis* - Cedros Island mule deer

For the purpose of this write-up, life history, basic requirements, and
management for mule deer and black-tailed deer will be combined, unless
an aspect differs significantly.


ORDER : 
Artiodactyla

CLASS : 
Mammal

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS : 
No special status

OTHER STATUS : 
The Cedros Island mule-deer, ssp. cedrocensis, is endangered [46].


COMPILED BY AND DATE : 
S. A. Snyder, June 1991


LAST REVISED BY AND DATE : 
NO-ENTRY


AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION : 
Snyder, S. A. 1991. Odocoileus hemionus. In: Remainder of Citation

WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus | Mule Deer 



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]:

ssp. hemionus - central Arizona and New Mexico north to northern
                British Columbia, Alberta, and central Saskatchewan;
                west-central British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and
                east through central North and South Dakota, Nebraska, 
                and Kansas; northeast corner of California and scattered
                sightings in Missouri, Minnesota, and Iowa
ssp. crooki - possibly the Texas Panhandle; southern Arizona and New
              Mexico; southwestern Texas and into Mexico
ssp. californicus - south coastal and east-central California
ssp. fuliginatus - northern Baja California into southern California
ssp. peninsulae - southern Baja California
ssp. columbianus - coastal British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, 
                   south through coastal Washington, Oregon, and through
                   California into Santa Barbara County
ssp. sitkensis - Alexander Archipelago, Alaska into western 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.
ssp. eremicus - possibly an isolated portion of southeastern California
                along the Colorado River
ssp. sheldoni - possibly Tiburon Island, Baja California, Mexico
ssp. inyoensis - possibly the eastern slope of the southern Sierra
                 Nevada, California
ssp. cedrosensis - Cedros Island, Baja California



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






    
AB
    
BC
    
MB
    
SK
    
YK
    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    







    
MEXICO
    




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 - buffalograss
   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].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus | Mule Deer 



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.), eurphorbia
(Euphorbia spp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), lechuguilla (Agave
lechuguilla), western yarrow (Achillea millefolium), red huckleberry
(Vaccinium parvifolium), swordfern (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 (Aquilla
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].


REFERENCES : 
NO-ENTRY

FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Odocoileus hemionus | Mule Deer 



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 preburn 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,
postburn foraging intensity, and the preburn 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 : 
NO-ENTRY

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]

Related categories for Wildlife Species: Odocoileus hemionus | Mule Deer