We recommend that travel
management plans be creatively devised
for important areas in the timbered
breaks before problems related to heavy
hunting pressure become chronic.
A
series of areas on
public lands in eastern
Montana could be strategically selected
for maintaining and improving age
diversity in populations of mule deer
bucks.
Accomplishing deer management
objectives with carefully conceived hunter
access plans may be preferable to making
major changes in the hunting season
structure once the problem becomes
chronic.
Progress in maintaining and
expanding hunter access to privately
owned portions of the timbered breaks
and prairie-badlands environments
continues under MFWP Block
Management and Habitat Montana
programs.
These efforts represent
important steps in expanding hunting
opportunity and help buffer the increase
in hunting pressure on public land.
Mule Deer Population Ecology in
Prairie-Badland Environments
Prairies represent patchy
environments for mule deer.
Preferred
habitats occur as relatively small
inclusions within large areas receiving
little or no use.
Therefore, population
density is generally low overall.
Although
Wood
et al.
(1989) documented densities
of 0.3-3.0 deer/km
2
on the Cherry Creek
study area during 1975-1987, higher
densities were recorded in small areas of
preferred habitat often associated with
agriculture.
Most mule deer populations in
prairie-badland environments are closely
associated with rugged badlands or
E
COLOGY
AND
M
ANAGEMENT
OF
D
EER
IN
M
ONTANA
144
non-timbered breaks.
Availability of
badlands in units larger than 4 km
2
during
winter provided minimum snow depth,
shelter from wind, preferred forage, and
security from predation (Dusek 1975,
Geist 1981, Wood 1987).
In many
prairie-badlands environments, mule
deer depend on native forage species
during winter.
Energy available in native
forage is often less than daily energy
requirements.
Consequently, a strategy
emphasizing energy conservation during
severe weather and foraging during
mild conditions was vital to overwinter
survival.
In the absence of conifer
vegetation, mule deer used topographic
features to help conserve energy (Wood
1988).
Winter severity and associated
restrictions on habitat availability and
use did not consistently limit fawn
recruitment or adult survival (Wood
et al.
1989).
Rather, environmental conditions
prior to and during the growing season
appeared to exert primary influence on
mule deer population dynamics.
During summer, springs, swales,
and creek bottoms preferred by adult
females during summer provided
succulent forage and other resources
important to fawn rearing.
Annual
variation in precipitation and temperature
resulted in wide fluctuations in forage
production and the period it remained
succulent and nutritious.
Wood
et al.
